newgrange
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In relation to the JC Decaux deal, is there any site, anywhere in the city, where they have removed billboards as promised and required by the deal?
Let’s not count places where buildings have been demolished and the billboards site no longer exists.@StephenC wrote:
Still on the case newgrange…:-)
Like a dog with a bone. 🙂
Here’s hoping they won’t try a third time at Newcomen Bridge.ABP have again done the right thing and upheld the appeals regarding the two of these montrosities JC Decaux wanted to put at Newcomen bridge.
Build away with the apartments, but no Metropoles.‘it is considered that the proposed Metropole structures would be visually obtrusive at this location and materially contravene the development objective indicated in the development plan for the area. The proposal would seriously injure the visual amentities of the area, would create an undesirable precedent for future similar development in areas so zoned (my emphasis) and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.’
DCC take note and stop granting permission to your mates JC Decaux to spread their ugly signage around the city.
Can’t understand why they don’t have a good, top quality, daily covered market a la Granville Island Market up there permanently.
The latest decision by ABP on the Newcomen bridge structure and the proposed Metropole is due this week.
I intend appealing this to ABP.
It makes a mockery of their decision to refuse permission the other side of the road only a short while ago.If anyone has any further insights or information they feel might be useful for me to include in the appeal, please PM me.
@newgrange wrote:
JC Decaux have another application in for this site 2224/09 which involves some ‘Metropoles’.
This has been granted permission with the following condition regarding the ‘metropoles’.
2. One of the proposed Metropole advertising structures shall be omitted from the development, the details of which shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the applicants shall remove the existing billboards and supporting structures from site and no further billboards / advertising signs are to be erected without as prior grant of planning permission. The erection of the proposed metropole shall be erected after the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and the visual amenities of the area.
What is wrong with DCC? Answers on a very large postcard please.
The Metropoles that were appealed to ABP were all rejected and now DCC go ahead and grant permission to stick one closer to the protected structure of Newcomen bridge than the one that was rejected across the road.
I suppose another €230 will have to be forked out to get ABP to (presumably) reject this crap again.
Plan No.: 2129/09
LOCATION: 1, Newcomen Avenue, Dublin 3
Retention of 2no. scrolling advertising structuresRETENTION PERMISSION REFUSED
Condition(s) and reason(s) FOR condition(s)
1. Having regard to the location and residential zoning of the site and to Development Plan policies to promote the development of underutilised infill sites it is considered that the retention of the advertising structures would not make full use of the development potential of the site and would, therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.2. Having regard to the specitic standards and guidelines set out in the Development Plan to be applied to Outdoor Advertising and to the scale and prominence of the forty-eight sheet panels it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the guidelines, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and of property in the vicinity and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Date of decision: March 18th, 2009.
Appeals to be submitted within four weeks.JC Decaux have another application in for this site 2224/09 which involves some ‘Metropoles’.
From a thread on boards.ie:
@Devin wrote:
Great record. An incredible amount was demolished around there at that time. If the guy who took the ‘now’ photos has access to negatives for the 1980 colour photos, it would be worth getting them digitally scanned. I’m presuming the photos on the site are just scans of 4″ x 6″ prints, which were always printed slightly out of focus anyway to conceal dust.
I’ll ask him. I have a feeling the photos were just found in a box, but you never know.
@Smithfield Resi wrote:
2541/01 – Z9 (Newcomen Bridge – those massive scrollers)
Application for retention is 2129/09
LOCATION 1, Newcomen Avenue, Dublin 3
Retention of 2no. scrolling advertising structuresLast date for observations is 26th Feb (hint ;))
I’ve put in an observation on this and a later one (2224/09) they have applied for at the same site.
Across the road from the (permission refused on appeal) Newcomen bridge ‘Metropole’ site, our friends JC Decaux tried to slip 5486/08 (containing TWO ‘Metropoles’) in over Christmas.
The development consists of the removal of 2 no. advertising structures together with the supporting steels, concrete slab and columns, the demolition of existing walls including boundary walls to allow for the construction of a two storey over basement apartment development consisting of 3 apartments (2 no 1 bedroom apartments and 1 no. 2 bedroom apartment)with terraces and balconies to rear complete with privacy screens. All apartments are accessed via a central yard which also contains 3 no. car parking spaces, bin and bicycles storage all accessed from an entrance on Newcomen Avenue. Also the construction of new boundary walls and a new landscaped public space on North Strand Road with 2 no. Metropole advertising structures.
Letter from An Taisce objecting is here (can’t get a direct link, sorry).
I would expect them to try again. They’re obviously very keen to get something up at this location, which is a protected structure.
@hutton wrote:
T
Re the yellow brick school closer to Cathal Brugha St, afaik the school wanted the structure to be built so that it would be able to take the load of further floors in future years – however it was the mandarins in the dept of Education that penny-pinched, and so blocked even that option. I suspect the same said mandarins live in polite middle class suburbs on the southside…I work there and can confirm this – well partly, it was the Dept. who cut money but the VEC that decided to take off the top floor and not build foundations that would have allowed an upward extension should it be needed. They just lopped the top off the plans, making no allowances for things like heating and air systems within the building. As a result there are problems with air flow and leaks from the roof that should have been a floor.
We’re now at capacity, since what should have been a 600/800 pupil school ended up as just a 400 pupil school. Mind you, we were waiting over 20 years for ‘the new school’ so even in its truncated format it was welcome.
It’s a fine school though, with fantastic sporting facilities – easily the best equipped school in Dublin and has transformed educational attainment and participation levels among local children.
@gunter wrote:
I should have acknowledged that Phil nailed it first with ctesiphon also in the pack.
On ctesiphon’s:
I know this one, but alas am currently unable to locate itIt’s in Marlborough Street. Usually hidden behind lots of buses.
According to a thread on boards.ie our friends JC Decaux have taken to putting their lovely erections up under cover of dark.
@gunter wrote:
That was the way they used to do scaffolding newgrange, back in the day. Floor joists would be taken out, put on edge and stuck out the windows, the inside end wedged under the floor above and out you went, with your life in your hands.
Crikey.
I was a 1963 baby – I hope my ma kept me well away from those things.
Thanks gunter.
