publicrealm
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@hutton wrote:
^^
The more this saga goes on the worse it becomes –
Helpful place that the DCC website is, it provides the law as to how applications ought to be made when the LA is a direct beneficary:
“These are planning applications by internal departments in Dublin City Council, made under Part 8 of the Planning & Development Regulations 2001. Members of the public have 6 weeks from the date of lodgement of the application to make objections. There is no fee in this case. A recommendation is made by the Planning Department, and then listed on the Agenda for City Council meeting for approval by elected members, prior to commencement of development.“
So remind me again – no Part 8 and no section 183 by councilors disposing of public lands???
The public have been shafted by a sham proceess.
Hutton
The Part 8 procedure is intended for when the local authority carries out work (or has others carry it out on their behalf). The site notices would be erected by the local authority. I don’t think that is the case here? Extract from Regs below:
Notice of proposed development.
81. (1) A local authority shall, in accordance with this article,—
(a) give notice of proposed development in an approved newspaper, and
(b) erect or fix a site notice or site notices on the land on which the proposed development would be
situated.I give up on the ‘disposal of public lands’ issue.
PVC King wrote:Councillors reacted angrily to the scheme yesterday saying the city management was “selling the public footpath” and “almost prostituting itself” to the company.
QUOTE]Gasp!
How upsetting for the Councillors. And has somebody explained to them the concept of ‘prostituting’ oneself to a vested interest?
The poor innocents – they must be in need of counselling (or maybe they are just regretting a missed opportunity)?
(Judean People’s Front – Official)
@StephenC wrote:
How original – a middle class vs working class slant to the whole debate. Its true I have never seen a working class person (from Sheriff Street by the sounds of your post) driving a car – how novel would that be. And of course most working class people are also immune to advertising.
In fairness – one does occasionally find oneself driving through these areas en route to the Yacht club.
A ‘kerchief soaked in cologne is a reliable remedy in my experience.
@kite wrote:
I agree with you.
We had a case in Cork recently where a question was asked of the City Manager (and the city law agent) to clarify whether or not a third party without legal title, beneficial ownership or rights to a site could apply for planning independent of the rightful owner.The managers and the law agent advised (rightly or wrongly) that any person can apply for permission, have it validated, and a decision made by the LA, BUT the grant of permission could not be acted on without the consent of the legal owner of the site.
Thank you Kite (and Ctesiphon etc).
Hutton – I have no argument with you and generally agree with the visual amenity argument you make. However the matter of ownership is simply not one of opinion – it is a matter of fact. And the facts do not support that particular angle.
Planning Permission is permissive in nature rather than granting rights. Section 34 (13) of the P&D Act is quite clear on this:
(13) A person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any development.
I imagine that the intention of DCC is to grant a licence to the Applicant (if permission is granted) – so even then the Councillors may have no real say.
Seeking invalidation is certainly barking up the wrong pole in this case.
@StephenC wrote:
This is a very good point.
I’m afraid it’s not accurate.
See my previous post: Consent = Officials [not Councillors] (and confers NO rights whatsoever – other than the right to make a valid planning application).
Therefore (am I labouring this somewhat??) the granting of PP does not require any agreement relating to land ownership – only CONSENT to make the planning application from the land owner (which can be provided by the Officials etc etc.)
Invalidation simply does not arise.
Also I would be very surprised if DCC had any intention of ceding public land in this case.
@hutton wrote:
@publicrealm wrote:
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.
I’m afraid I was the one who was unclear – I’m not suggesting that land disposal is an admin function – merely that planning permission does not require land disposal (i.e. does not require the applicant to be the owner). What it does require is the consent of the owner – in this case DCC. The giving of that consent is an admin function.
If it is the case that DCC have agreed to dispose of the land then you are quite correct – such an agreement would require the agreement of the Councillors. Have DCC agreed to dispose of the land? If not my point stands.
I do not know if DCC Councillors are better than others – certainly their tribunal history is not good. I recently noted that the South East Area Committee did everything in their power to frustrate plans for the new Lansdowne Road Stadium – while pretending to be in favour of it. I don’t believe they were motivated by the National interest? Or even the interest of Dublin. I’m sure there are some good ones but they have a long road to travel (in my view).
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.)
see https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=62802#post62802
ctesiphon wrote:Was there any taxpayers’ money involved in Croke Park? Or has the government ever provided financial support to the GAA? And I don’t just mean that question narrowly to be interpreted as handouts for building/infrastructure work.***
I haven’t been following this case closely, so perhaps this question has been answered already. If so, apologies. Anyway- will there be any public access along the (Lansdowne) bank of the Dodder after the stadium is built? Or will the redevelopment fully close this off?
QUOTE]Access to the dodder walk will be unimpeded. It will remain as a public walkway. A small sliver will be incorporated into the development to facilitate the retention of a back pitch for the two tenant clubs on site.
It is proposed to widen the existing public footpath, carry out additional landscaping (with native trees for better bat foraging habitat) install roosting boxes, provide public lighting of the entire Dodder Walk etc etc.
Shocking.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit, publicrealm?
Once I understand the issues more clearly, I’ll gladly get all Jesuitical on this one.Thanks.
Very well my child.
Issue 1: DCC grant permission which allows works (in particular demolition) well in excess of those described in the public notices (which state ‘a small amount of demolition is required’). Question 1 – is this a valid permission? (Standard Condition 1 states “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”)
Issue 2: Notwithstanding the validity of the permission the applicant then exceeded the amount of demolition permitted by demolishing most of the structure, including most of the areas he had undertaken to retain. This development was unauthorised and DCC served enforcement notice. The Applicant’s response was to apply for permission for the demolition of the remainder of the “partially demolished” structure, and to build the new house.
An application to demolish the remainder of the structure would have been in order – but in effect the application incorporated the unauthorised works (insofar as the demolition of the remainder was to be followed by the construction of the house- over the unauthorised works) without regard to the fact that they were unauthorised. S32(b) of the Act explicitly requires that permission for unauthorised development must be the subject of an application for retention (rather than an application for permission), with the appropriate (retention) application fee being paid. In other words, DCC has now granted permission for development which incorporates unauthorised development and which is the subject of enforcement action by DCC, and the applicant has made no attempt to regularise the situation. Question 2 – is the permission valid – insofar as it cannot be completed without unauthorised development.
I think a recitation of the Solemn Mysteries is called for myself.
DCC has decided to grant permission.
Haven’t seen the grant so I don’t know if any conditions are attached – in any event I don’t suppose that the Applicant will worry too much about complying with them – or that DCC will bother too much either.
An interesting precedent for DCC Conservation Areas?
DCC Decision is due tomorrow.
Interesting that they have apparently chosen not to invalidate (on the grounds that the Application effectively ‘pockets’ the gain made by virtue of the unauthorised development on site (i.e. the demolition)).
Could set an interesting legal precedent – with potential implications for Conservation Areas – but they are possible constrained by their earlier decision to sanction the demolition shown in the drawings – which did not accord with the public notices.
I believe they are wrong here – any Jesuits out there who would like to get to grips with this issue?:D
He was an artist – maybe wrong sometimes – but confident in his vision.
I hope we may see his likes again – we are the poorer for his passing imho.
RIP
@Tuborg wrote:
Incidentally the Henry Cecil building was all set to become a protected structure just before the idiots working on the carlton site caused its collapse in November 2003, it didnt make it in time, however! would i be right in thinking that had the henry cecil been ratified as a listed building, the contractors would’ve had to rebuild it?..
They weren’t idiots.
Just before the move to add it to the list they had advised LCC that they intended to demolish it as this would have been exempted development.
They were correct and I (and no doubt many others) wrote to LCC requesting an emergency listing.
Sadly the building, which appeared to be in excellent structural condition and had stood for 200 years, ‘collapsed’ as innocent builders were doing some preliminary work (on behalf of the owners who wanted to demolish the building) – (which was about to be listed) – (which would have meant that it could only be demolished in exceptional circumstances) – (which could happen to a bishop).
Amazingly nobody was injured in the ‘collapse’.
Had it been listed and subsequently collapsed there is no guarantee that it would have been reinstated.
Planning departments generally take a pragmatic view of these matters – the ‘spilt milk’ approach.
Sad but true – for a big city example watch what happens to ‘Grianblah’ (26 Palmerston Park, Dublin) – due for decision by DCC shortly:(
@Devin wrote:
I am not having a go at Fas – they do a lot of good work. But, as Greg said earlier, that’s the metaphor which sums it up best: the Fas trainees being let loose unsupervised on the valuable antique pavments.
This is bloody awful. You’d think we’d have come further. Pointing is supposed to be secondary to stonework.
I suspect that that battle is lost. I agree it’s awful.
This lunchtime I took the attached pics (camera phone) – unbelievably they show repointing of the main entrance steps to Powerscourt Town House.
Maybe these are in private ownership – but the destruction wrought in public areas (in the name of DCC) is completely inexcusable.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Yup. Don’t all ladies of a certain age have a thing for him? That whole ‘poor man’s Terry Wogan’ routine seems to be a winner.
Or were you marvelling at my ability to spell it correctly (with only one N)?:)It’s just that, you know, I thought that you were available. It’s not as if you hav’nt been putting yourself about on this forum.
I’m of a similar age and am also recovering from certain things and then this guy comes out of nowhere.
That’s why I havn’t posted in a while.
sniff
@The Denouncer wrote:
At least 10 campaigners also requested an oral hearing be held in relation to the planning application, which could delay the project indefinitely. Inspectors will now be appointed to compile a new report on the project, .
An Oral Hearing will delay the project ‘indefinitely’?
Who do they get to write this crap? Average duration of Oral Hearings is 1 to 3 days. Say a week in a very complex case.
A bit short of ‘indefinitely’ surely?
@Jaypers wrote:
Pity you guys objected, I was looking forward to seeing what they’d build there!
Is that wrong????
It is always refreshing to see such a balanced and trusting post. Well done Jaypers.
Sadly the (most recent) application has been invalidated and you may have to wait a little while to see the new house.
A recent Irish success – the Rosminian Orders hermitages in Waterford (by BatesMaher Architects)
@jimg wrote:
If this is the case, then their actions make a complete mockery of the planning process.
Yes, I’m afraid that is the case.
The question is what can the Planning Authority do about it?
Interestingly the argument being advanced by the applicant is that retention of the remaining walls (following the ‘small amount of demolition’) proved unsafe as they were unstable. In other words his proposal was never buildable.
If this is accepted as an argument then nothing is safe from demolition.
Anyway the Reg. Ref in DCC is 4303/06 and the last date for receipt of submissions is 30th August 06.
