hutton
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
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?
@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. 🙁
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.
@StephenC wrote:
No need to go that far! Like all the poles erected in the city (and much of the road works) Sierra is your only man!
I have to say I would wonder if they just erect poles on their own initative (and forward the bill) or does someone have a fetish in City Hall and keep asking for more, more, more….yes, yes, yes……😀
My own personal favourite I think has got to be the pedestrian crossing on Leeson Street, right i. Although it is a one-way street (albeit with a bus contra-flow) in the middle of the South Georgian quarter, DCC saw fit to insert 3 double height poles with 6 traffic lights – it just looks sooo beautiful :rolleyes:
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 😡
@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]
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 😮 😮
@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
@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 🙂
@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
@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.
FROM RTE: “JCDecaux in ‘free bicycles for ads’ offer: Cllr Emer Costello (Lab) is concerned about the 70 proposed billboards; Cllr Naoise Ó Muirà (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:
ctesiphon wrote: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.]
Point taken. Its not the job of the private sector to protect the public domain – but it is the city councils. The scheme apparently was put out out on the Govs tender website.
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.
Good points too by PVCking.
On foot of these I am editing my previous post as in retrospect it is slightly unfair to mention the private consultant by name.
@Lotts wrote:
Hsince it was severely damaged after a truck backed into it in 2004.
Ah yes back in the days when trucks used to drive thru the city :rolleyes:
Good call Lotts I was wondering what was happening here.
@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 😡
@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 8In 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.
@Seamus O’G wrote:
Well done, Hutton.
Many thanks 🙂
After figuring out the second one too – ’tis the new Ilac by the side of Roches. I knew that I knew it – good tip Graham re the surface being matt on the dry days 🙂
So 2 happy more faces for me! 🙂 🙂
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! 🙂
@Morlan wrote:
Maybe they’ll saw them down and leave little stumps.
Leave them as stumps – just like the intersection of Baggot and Fitzwilliam Streets?
Probably 😡
Any further word on this bastard? His buildings at Gardiner St Upr / Mountjoy Sq continue to be in an appalling state. Another one being run on similar lines opposite Grants at the corner at 1 Mountjoy Sq caught fire over Christmas. In media reports the buildings was referred to as a hostel – these buildings are not hostels they are slums, and more worringly that particular corner only became slums in the last few years 😡
Enforcement DCC – or will the lucky escape at Christmas be ignored until its too late?
