newgrange
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Got letters today in relation to the two appeals I have in (Newcomen Bridge and Summerhill) saying the Board has decided to hold an oral hearing of them and to determine the appeals before December 12th.
I’m presuming this is along with all the other appeals related to this scheme and not just my two.My appeal on the Newcomen Bridge one was due a decision today.
This has been put back now til December 11th.A possibility that they are considering them all together? Anyone hear anything?
Bob the builder is missing too – I think someone should tell the guards he’s probably been in the paving section of DCC for a while.
Newcomen Bridge is a protected structure. Case No. 6768/06 wants to enhance it with one of the metropole ‘things’.
A thing of beauty you’ll agree:
http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00119581.pdf
List of Protected structures: http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/RPS_tcm35-8619.pdfGumph…I think an appeal to the High Court by me is unlikely.
I’d love to stick it to DCC and JC Decaux and all their dodgy undercover deals though even if it was just for one out of the 120 seperately applied for monstrosities.
I’m sure the local gentlemen of the tracksuits will vandalise them anyway, but I’d rather they never got installed at all – particularly on a Protected Structure.
Bringing this back to the front page…
I have two appeals into ABP about these ‘structures’.
6767/06 and 6768/06 – financial considerations meant I could not object to more.
One is due a decision by 20th August, the other by the 27th.In the event that my appeals are rejected – is that it? Is the process then exhausted?
There were also occasions when streets were renumbered. I know this certainly happened in the case of Summerhill and presumably for other streets too.
Personally, I live on a street where one side is numbered 1-3 consecutively, the other side is 31-36 consecutively.
My side at one stage did have ten houses on it, the other side only ever had the six that are still there.I’m not trying to be smart here – I have been to Hong Kong and seen the bamboo scaffolding they hang from buildings – could a similar thing not have been used on the Spire? There would have been no missed spots, no trees uprooted, no tiles damaged, certainly no 200 grand.
I think I saw you taking that photo the other day.
It’s a small world, or I’m a creepy stalker, one or the other….From today’s ‘Irish Independent’:
Signs are bad for gigantic advert billboards
PLANS to allow one of the world’s largest advertisers to erect 130 billboards in Dublin are now in doubt.
An Bord Pleanala has been inundated with objections over plans to allow JC Decaux erect the large advertising hoardings in return for 450 bicycles, four public toilets and street signs.
The Dublin Transportation Office and Arnott’s department store are among the objectors who claim that the “metropoles” will destroy the city streetscape and pose a serious traffic hazard.
And if the Board decides the objections have merit and refuses permission, it could scupper the deal between the city council and the advertising firm.
The Board is dealing with 22 planning appeals related to plans to site the metropoles in the city centre and outskirts.
The contract planned for free-standing panels ranging from 2sq m – about the size of a bus shelter advertisement – to 7sq m which would be erected on prominent sites in the city centre.
The planned locations included the redeveloped Henry Street, Liffey Street and Smithfield Plaza as well as Malahide Road.
In submissions lodged with An Bord Pleanala, the Dublin Transportation Office said it would object to 70 of the 130 sites, because they pose a “traffic hazard” and are “generally unacceptable”.
Questions have also been raised as to why the council was allowed grant planning permission to a project in which it was involved.
“We hold that this development is essentially a public/private partnership and as such Dublin City Council (DCC) is to profit by this development and thus the matter should be referred to An Bord Pleanala as DCC should not be in a position to make a decision for its own profit,” a submission from An Taisce notes.
Other appellants described the signs as “enormous, obtrusive and downright ugly, not to mention a nuisance”.
Objectors included Debenhams and Arnott’s who said the signs would be outside the main entrances, and would lead to congestion arising from less footpath space.
Owners of the Ilac Centre, Irish Life Assurance, claimed the signs amounted to the “virtual appropriation of the public realm by a private interest”, adding there was “inequitable economic benefit to the applicant at the expense of the city”.
The planning file also notes that a planning officer recommended refusal for a sign on Capel Street, as it was “a key historic street” with two rows of protected structures.
However, the planner was overruled and permission was granted by the city council.
While the council will not receive any money from advertising, it is believed the company could gain up to €1m a year in fees. Some city councillors claimed they had not been properly consulted and so opposed the plans.
Paul Melia
Looks like 14 appeals against these have been submitted to An Bord Pleanála.
I was hoping there would be more, but I suppose 14 is better than none.
**edit** there are some more possibles but they do not include the word ‘metropole’ in their description so I am not clear if they are part of the dreaded scheme or not.Case Nos. and locations :
222953
Footpath on southern side of North Strand Road, To
West of Newcomen Bridge, Adjacent to Junction of North Strand Road223084
Public footpath outside 80 North Strand Road, Dublin 3.223085
Footpath on southern side of Summerville (sic), adjacent to 67-84
Mountainview Court (under reconstruction), Summerville (sic), Dublin 1.223095
Footpath on eastern side of junction of Bolton Street and Capel
Street, Dublin 1.223096
The public footpath to the front of the
office of ‘John Feahey and Company’ at Zhivago’s Corner, the
junction of Ryders Row and Loftus Lane, Dublin 1.223101
Footpath eastern side Capel Street, Adjacent to 74-77 Capel
Street, Dublin 1.223103
The grass verge on the western side of the Malahide Road, Dublin 5223104
On the lay-by adjacent to the grass verge on the eastern side of
the Malahide Road, D.5, adjacent to 43-44, St.Brendan’s Ave.223112
adjacent to Trinity College Enterprise Centre, Pearse St, Dublin 2223117
A site located on the public footpath to the Northern side of the
junction of Ryders Row and Parnell Street, Dublin 1.223121
Grass verge adjacent to the pedestrian entrance to Albert College
Grove,Dublin 9 & opposite the junction with St. Pappins Road.223127
The public footpath adjacent to the IDA Business Centre to the
east on Gardiner Street Lower, Dublin 1.223143
The public foothpath on the southern side of Marrowbone Lane,
close to the junction of Marrowbone Lane and Summer Stree Sth, D8.223202
The public footpath to the west of the access to the City Junction Business Park, on the northern side of the
N32, Outside Bewleys, Clare Hall, Dublin 17.
(This last appeal was incomplete and is thus invalid).There was a thing on RTE years ago called ‘In Flags and Flitters’ – I remember it as having lots of old footage.
I have a feeling I have it on video stored since way back then (God knows where). If I find it and can manage to convert it to DVD I’ll PM you.
Marian Finucane had quite good coverage of these today but again they are being linked with the red herring ‘free bicycles and toilets’ nonsense.
Hopefully An Bord Pleanála will do the right thing with at least a number of the appeals and that perhaps DCC will reconsider the whole scheme. By all means generate revenue, but not with more intrusive hoardings and ‘metropoles’ – put ads on bin lorries, dustcarts, staff jackets, bins, all DCC vehicles, etc. – have some imagination.
Just a reminder, the deadlines for appealing the decisions on these excrescences to An Bord Pleanála are coming up this coming week.
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.Nos. 42,43,44 and 45 were the ‘New Electric’ cinema in 1938 and before that the ‘Electric’ was at 44 and 45 (from 1911).
It later became a ‘Cinerama’ with the associated big screen in 1963 and in 1972 the Capitol moved there following its closure in Prince’s Street. It continued as a cinema til 1974, was empty til about 1977 or so and then became a carpet showroom.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?
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?
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.
