hutton

@ctesiphon wrote:

Edit: Ha! I went to bamboozle you with 20-odd smilies, and got this:

Ha ha – amateur 😀 Sure dont ye know that the archiseek grand wizards is wise to the idea of taking multiple simultaneous applications – unlike a certain LA we wont name :p

BTW the revised edition will cost big books 😮

*quits after failing fast in the attempt-at-humour stakes*

@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 😉

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 –

@mulp wrote:

Irish Times, Friday, 02 March 2007:
“Director of the RIAI objects to energy standard for new homes”

A dispute has broken out in the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) about an objection made by its director, John Graby, to higher energy performance standards for new homes in Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown.
In a letter to the county council last month Mr Graby said it was the RIAI’s view that “such matters are properly dealt with through the building regulations regulatory systems and not by variation to [ county] development plans”.
Although the institute “fully supports the concept of improved standards in energy efficiency and sustainability generally”, this “should be dealt with on a national basis by the Minister for the Environment . . . and the Building Regulations Advisory Board”.
The Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown proposal had been examined by the RIAI sustainability task force and it was felt that there would be “substantial problems” in implementing it, “including lack of agreed standards, methodologies and local authority resources”.
The Irish Home Builders’ Association, which also opposed setting a standard 60 per cent higher than the current regulations on the basis that it was “not achievable”, said that the industry’s concerns about the proposal were “fully shared by the RIAI”.
However, one member of the sustainability task force, who did not wish to be identified, said that all of its members “supported Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown wholeheartedly” in adopting the new standards, and they had requested a meeting with Mr Graby to discuss the issue.
“I can only say that we were very unhappy about the tone of the letter, which was very negative and wouldn’t have been something that we endorsed.”
Mr Graby said that he discussed the matter with John Goulding, who chairs the task- force, and he had agreed that energy standards for new housing should be dealt with on a national basis rather than by individual local authorities imposing their own standards.
Frank McDonald
© 2007 The Irish Times
________________________________

There can be no doubt left now that this Government, or its likely reincarnation after the general election, will resist dragging our inadequate Building Control Regulations up to the minimum standards for energy performance, that we know they should be at. Lobbying by vested interests in the construction / developer sectors are the chief factors involved in preventing progress. Part L of the building regulations is treated more often than not as a target to hit, rather than the bare minimum acceptable.

I commend Dun Laoghaire Rathdown’s decision. We need to see more County Councils demanding these changes. If a Fianna Fáil government won’t legislate for these issues, we need Councils who can consider more than vested interests, to do so on a local level. Piecemeal progress is infinitely better than no progress.
“Lack of agreed standards, methodologies and local authority resources”, are the problems cited by Mr Graby. What exactly is the problem with the lack of a nationwide consensus on standards, methodologies? A large proportion of my work is in the DLRD area and I see no such problems. Architects are (generally) intelligent enough sorts. Surely they can cope with one set of rules in one district, and a differing set elsewhere? Hell, why not just encourage clients to use the higher standards everywhere? Its not as if Mr Architect is going to be out of pocket, surely clients will comprehend that additional work incurs additional expense. Nobody expects us to work for free, do they?
As for Local authority resources, one of the six copies of drawings submitted goes to the building control department, and they often ask for a set of drawings showing compliance with Building Regs. when the commencement notice is lodged. The applicant’s agent will have done the ‘work’. What kind of additional resources would be required to confirm that a new standard is complied with as opposed to an old one?

Enforcement of compliance is certainly a critical issue. I am an architect, and from first hand experience, I believe that architects, in general, should not be left to certify compliance with regulations. I have recently overseen the retrofitting of insulation into four newly built townhouses. NO roof insulation had been fitted in these houses. The roofs had to be completely stripped to fit the insulation as the ceiling followed the roof pitch. The RIAI registered architect who inspected & certified these buildings initially told my clients that their roof was indeed insulated, with a foil-backed plasterboard!
He then saw no difficulty in cutting 6 large holes (300mm dia) right through the new insulation to accommodate unsuitable lights and stated to me that “It says nowhere in the regulations that you cannot do this”! Sure it doesn’t, and neither does it say you can cut six large holes in the newly laid DPM. He also was unaware of any requirement to provide ventilation space above the insulation and did not know what it was for.
This is by no means an isolated incident. I am sure we all know of some architects who operate like this. Despite what the RIAI will say about the professionalism of its member architects, members can, and do continue to turn a blind eye to (or be ignorant of) breaches by developers while developers are paying their fees. Even if these architects are a minority, this is not good enough. The system does not work ‘effectively’ and unfortunately, paid ‘professionals’ let down the building’s end user or purchaser in too many cases.
In the case of the 4 houses above, the architect explained to me: “We inspected the works on a fortnightly basis, the builder had sealed up the roofs and ceilings between vists” Had he indeed! Well that’s OK, just issue the cert then…

How many Building Control Inspectors have been employed by Local Authorities to deal with the scale of development this country has / is experiencing? How much funding has central government provided for this?
How many times has Mr Graby and the representative body of Architects in Ireland called for a proper Building Control System such as that in place in Northern Ireland, with mandatory approval required before construction commences?
Why is Mr Graby now criticising the commendable, democratic decision taken by DLRD County Council to demand proper energy and insulation standards and apparently dissenting from the opinions of members of the RIAI’s own sustainability task force?
Surely the RIAI should be supporting DLRD’s actions.

Does “The Director,” Mr Graby need to take more Direction from the members, the Council and the Sustainability Task Force of his own Institute?

This is one of the most erudite posts Ive read in a long while. Spot on.

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.

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 🙂

The white vans wiith the thelodalite gangs were out last night. Note the red lines marked in the pavement… Im hearing that a dozen bus shelters are due to go in – should work well with the proposed adverts, as noted already in the “..Sts cluttered already” thread. :rolleyes:

And just to remind people – not that most need or want it – of that other recent “regeneration” permitted by DCC, not 200 yards away – the Henrietta Hag

@lunasa wrote:

Re: An Stad
Thanks Hutton. Any hint as to who this Hibernian Rackman might be.

Your welcome 🙂

Its not quite a rackman situation – its more a sorry story about the house belonging to a number in a family who havent been able to agree what to do with it (apart from sale of rere 2-3 years ago). Although one of the family has been living there, there is little money, and none of the siblings were willing or able to spend money on it. Was run as a guest house, but all things considered, I get the impression that times have been tough…So not quite a Rackman story. Anyhow it is my understanding that agreement has been reached to release the house onto the open market – so hopefully it’ll all work out.

Thats good new about Synott Place – and there is also another Georgian on that row also undergoing what would appear to be a good quality restoration 🙂

However…

Apologies for pissing on the parade, but just behind the Synott Place houses is 422 North Circular Road, where the author and playwright, Sean O’ Casey (1880 -1964) lived until 1926 after having moved here from 35 Mountjoy Square in 1918. The house is being let fall into a desperate state – broken windows etc; there is a real and definate danger that it could become another Sheridan house fiasco; it becomes run down, corrugated metal gets tacked on – and an application goes in to replace the “eyesore”:rolleyes: 🙁
Among the plays O’ Casey wrote in 422 was “The Plough and the Stars”, while his other works “The Shadow of a Gunman”, is based on 35 Mountjoy Square. Subsequently he emigrated to London; for more connections on O’ Casey in the area see Dorset Street (building replaced), Innisfallen Parade, and the West house at 20 Dominick Street Lower (well-known for rococco plaster work), and 35 Mountjoy Square (replica facade).

@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 🙂