publicrealm

@The Denouncer wrote:

Always depresses me how long it takes things to get built in this country. “It’ll create more traffic on Pearse St!” “It’ll cause noise pollution!” “I won’t be able to see the sea from my bedroom!” “t’ll cast a shadow on the snozberry bush!”

If theres a snozberry bush there then your screwed – its listed as a class 1 endangered species in the Habitats Directive

Quite likely that ther are some snozzes nesting in the area or a t least commuting through the area – which (obvously) is nearly as significent.

It would cost millions to recreate a new habitat even if permitted. You shouldn’t have mentioned it.

@altotude wrote:

Just received a letter from DCC Planning Enforcement regarding “unauthorised development” – an enforcement notice was issued under section 154 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Mind you, it doesn’t seem to have slowed them down.

Thanks for that altotude – your previous complaint is obviously why I got such an ‘instant’ response. I got the same letter as you re the Enforcement Notice – which was issued on the 10th July. In fairness to DCC this is an incredibly fast response time.

I’m not concerned by the completion of the footings (I have photographs!).

I expect that work has now ceased and I will continue to monitor. If they have not then the applicant will be very unwise and further submissions will be required.

The next step in the sad saga is probably an application for retention (of the unauthorised demolition). A second chance for the planners perhaps?

I await it with interest.

@asdasd wrote:

A forum which is shocked, SHOCKED!, when the someone replaces some old windows in the third floor of a nondescript pub in a nondescript Irish country town, is not SHOCKED! if Bishop O’Toole needs more lebensraum and the country cottage is just too quaint for him:
utter bollocks.

Haha. 😀

Very amusing. But – in fairness I don’t think anyone on this forum condoned what FOT has proposed – I personally have no idea what it looks like. My point was that the intemperate language used had tainted the objection and that AT should therefore withdraw it (the objection).

I would hold the same view regardless of what was objected to. Objections whould be reasoned and reasonable. Terms such as criminal are neither and serve to reinforce the existing prejudice against AT and give ammunition to the multitudinous gombeens in their ceaseless propoganda.

(Er, you’r not one of them are you Asdad?)

@Thomond Park wrote:

The use of the word ‘criminal’ is most unfortunate and I have to say most un-taiscan

It is unfortunate.

I am a supporter of AT but have been aware of this tendancy for some time (see thread ‘AT – vilified for vigelance’ where I stated:

“Thirdly they need to moderate their language. Strident opinions may (?) be acceptable in a discussion forum but they are inappropriate for a publically funded organisation – also unwise.”

It is especially unwise when making a submission on the application of a nationally prominent and supportive journalist.

I feel that the observation is tainted by this language and should be withdrawn by AT – regardless of the context. An apology to the applicant might even be appropriate?

Thanks for all the encouragement folks 🙂

Made the call and submitted the written complaint this am.

On following up this afternoon was advised that site was visited before lunch (!). The person I spoke to was fully au fait with my complaint and very much on the ball (a different person carried out the site visit and I was not in contact with that person).

My understanding is that appropriate action will be taken by DCC immediately. Now I AM holding my breath – perhaps I was unfair in my earlier posts about lack of enforcement?

If action is taken my confidence in the system will be much restored.

Having said all of that I’m still not sure what can be achieved at this stage – poor Manning Robertson must be spinning?

The applicant has up to 6 months to respond to the request for additional information (RFI) – after which time (if unanswered) the application is deemed withdrawn.

If theapplicant responds and if the planning authority considers that the response contains significent additional data then anyone who has already objected plus new entries to the process may makke submissions on the additional information. This fact will be advertised in the press. However if the PA does not consider the additioal information to contain significent new data there is no opportunity to comment on it.

Keep n touch with the progress of the application – it must be decided within 4 weeks of the applicant’s response (8 weeks in some circumstances) and – if you are on record – you will be advised in writing of the decision. You will then have 4 weeks (from the date of the decision) to submit an appeal.

CologneMike posted

While it was generally assumed that Jackson’s Turret was a listed building, this is not so, according to senior planner, Dick Tobin.

When asked what is the criterion required to grant protected status on a building, Mr Tobin explained that this is secured if a building is included in the city’s development plan or alternatively if it is carried forward from a previous development plan.

I am familiar with Jackson’s Turret. It certainly should be a Protected Structure in my view – it is one of the very earliest buildings on that bank of the river and can be seen standing alone in a very early painting looking across the river (eighteenth Century?).

It is also a building with a distinctive and distinguished design. I once heard that it was connected in some way with smuggling on the river? I was inside on two occasions and the interior is also interesting with one particularly fine first floor room overlooking the river.

Considering what happened to Grianblah in Palmerston Park (see separate thread) its architectural quality may not save it.:(

BTY – it is directly across the river from Dick Tobins office – so presumably he knows a little about it.

I find them very convenient.

There ya go (gone!)

QUOTE=ctesiphon]

Wasn’t the outcome of the courtcase something along the lines of the new residents of the adjoining development being given swipe cards to use the gate? Maybe I’m getting mixed up. Fully agreed, though, about the mistake of ABP in challenging this one- can’t do their public profile much good, which is hardly what they need right now.

The adjoining residents will be allowed to use the parkland and access the LUAS – this was always offered by the current residents (provided the maintenance costs are shared pro-rata) and there is no reasonable planning argument against such an arrangement (certainly not a winnable argument in my view).

. I have a rehearsed rant on Ireland’s increasingly litigious culture, but it puts me in a bad mood and I don’t want to spoil such a nice day.

I know, I know – the residents were probably not so concerned by 60 year old married (you are married?)alcoholic women frisbee players such as yourself (any photographs?;) ). To be honest they probably had more middle class concerns about Anto and his mates with their beer cans and the fear that Anto might claim that the seating/lighting/maintenance of same/whatever (erected on Anto’s behalf by the middle class residents, by dictat of the Commissariat/Board) caused him to slip on a pool of Jacinta’s vomit causing emotional suffering and irreparable damage to his ability to work. An open and shut case m’lud – disadvantaged youth v middle class bastards in (gated) community. Must be worth a mill?

.[/QUOTE]