JC Decaux signs - take extra care

MadsL

Here's whats coming next folks....up on JCD's website...Sean Moore Rd.

mike65

All local authorities have the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy approach to planning notices

2 mins 45 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U8SalQ_sqE

Mike.

Our man in Havana

Beware of the leopard. Rofl!

I do wonder if DCC had the plans on display in a locked filing cabinet in a cellar behind a door marked "Beware of the leopard"?

MadsL

So true....

send them the link and ask them is this their idea of public consultation...


____________________________
WANTED
Leopard.
must have guarding experience
Apply: City Manager's office

fenris

Another potential measure would be to restrict the revenue stream from the signs, screw their business case by targeting the companies who advertise on the offending boards, lots of calls, letters, boycott products and services, highlight product defects etc, effectively do a sustained low level adbusters style anti advertising / subvertising. Just make advertising on these signs more trouble than it is worth, a little time by a lot of people goes a long way. e.g. A car dealer advertises on one of theser boards, go get a test drive, spend some time, maybe even start some paperwork rolling, show them the money if you are really shopping for a car, then at the last minute pull out, telling them that you couldn't possibly buy from a company that advertises with JD in such a dangerous manner. One or two incidents could be dismissed as cranks/ecomentalists but as the time spent/lost opportunities start to add up the JD advertising could be seen as a liability.
The best thing is that no co-ordination is needed, no pre-planning just a few minutes well spent on the phone or as you pass an offending business.

MadsL

Fenris, this was used very effectively recently - and also a few years back when illegal billboards were going up everywhere. Good thinking.

Also could any techies figure out how to capture the video stream on

http://www.dublincity.public-i.tv/site/#webcast

The July meeting - from 02:38:25 onwards.

Many thanks.

MadsL

Featured on Six One news now.....

nialler

Nice one mad didn't hear that the dorset st one was removed, well done and keep up the good work. Is the sean moore road one true? mother in law will throw a hissy fit.

MadsL

Is the sean moore road one true?

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display

either serach for JCDecaux (no spaces) or enter the following planning references

6816/06
6817/06

Click on view documents tab to see the montage photograph

mother in law will throw a hissy fit.

Give her Daithi Doolins's mobile number

http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/Councillors/YourLocalCouncillors/Pages/DaithiDoolan.aspx

lostexpectation

can you find the planning montage for the rathmines richmond hill sign, i've terrible trouble finding anything on the planning search page.

lostexpectation

rte radio one news direct link
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0716/news1pm_av.html?2399561,null,209

Jemmy

Bond-007 wrote: »

Beware of the leopard. Rofl!

I do wonder if DCC had the plans on display in a locked filing cabinet in a cellar behind a door marked "Beware of the leopard"?

The public drive me mental, everything is there for the public to see you just dont bother your arses to go see them until its too late.:mad:

Stop complaining when its to late, if your really worried about these things do it on time!

blorg

lostexpectation wrote: »

get black and yellow warning tape and put it around them.

That is not a bad idea at all; it's entirely non-destructive while still making a clear point. I'll certainly volunteer to help! For most effect we might want to co-ordinate and get them all done together.

lostexpectation

the public didn't know the dorset street sign would be so different to the plan montage jemmy, only the contractors did. and many of the signs were objected too, as pointed out they were prevented from objecting to them by illegal project splitting and onerous fees jemmy.

MadsL

Planning reference is 2209/07

Interesting....there is NO montage - unlike the others where montages were done...they must have though "no way they'll pass that!" :eek:

OMG there is no site plan either....:eek::eek:

Just this....

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00202476.pdf


This is outrageous...they passed this with;
1. No montage
2. No site plan
3. The 'precise' location was 'a red circle' sprayed on the pavement

Planner's report here
http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00152425.pdf


This is either

a) planner incompetance
or
b)management saying "ah, just pass them"

My money on the latter...

Astonishing :eek:

Daithi Doolin claims that each location was 'thoroughly investigated'

what a crock o'sh...

MadsL

By the way the business owner did not give written consent...

Common law often extends landowners rights to the middle of the roadway - especially in georgian areas. This sign could possibly be erected illegally.

Does anyone have access to the land registry database at work could help with this? PM me.

narkymarky

MadsL - great post and apologies if somebody else has suggested this and I've missed it; why not forward these details to the products/companies/brands being advertised on the stands? Fairly sure somebody in a marketing dept. somewhere is going to contact the company they contract outdoor advertising to and ask whats going on. Can't imagine many businesses would want their campaign to feature as part of the lead photo in a daily paper if there was an incident near one of these hoardings.

MadsL

email him...


It's the minister

taptips.ie is what is being advertised...

sent him an email and ask him if he knows they are causing a hazard to the blind and are a danger to pedestrians! Also ask him why he is using pointless, wasteful illuminated advertising to get us to save water in the wettest summer on record.

You could send him this link and ask him to withdraw the ads.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0716/6news_av.html?2399684,null,230


Also ask him why the planning permission was rubberstamped without consultation with the National Council for the Blind, the Disability representive groups or the public. And why the City Manager has twice refused to do a Health & Safety report even though the DTO and An Bord Pleanala decribed them as "a traffic hazard" and "an endangerment to public safety"

He also has responsibilty for local authorities and the planning process. He has the power to launch an inquiry.

Help me out here guys - I'm busting a gut trying to get these things made safe.

minister@environ.ie


Post your replys here.....

MadsL

http://www.environ.ie/en/Ministers/MinisterGormleysCV/

"He had the distinction of being the first elected representative in Ireland to have an email address."

Time to use it then so.....:D

MadsL

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0716/6news_av.html?2399684,null,230

NCBI have been ignored through this whole fiasco....

I can think of the 'retrofitting' I'd like to do....

Notice that DCC are still playing the line that it is up to JCDecaux to make these signs safe. Pathetic. They are both the Planning Authority and the Roads Authority and yet they simply rubberstamped these appliactions.

They seem unable or unwilling to enforce the independant safety review that their own planning department insisted on.

:mad:

MadsL

http://www.dermotlacey.ie/blog/2008/07/erection-of-dangerous-jc-decaux-metropoles-must-be-suspended/


Councillor Dermot Lacey throws his weight behind stopping this fiasco.



Well done Dermot!

Páid

Well done OP.

A spokesman for the council said: "We are currently examining whether the signs have been erected at each site in accordance with the conditions attaching to the grant of permission in each case."

The spokesman added it was in the conditions of the planning permissions granted that the advertising panels would not impede pedestrian movement, road signs, traffic lights, pedestrian sight lines, pedestrian crossings or any other road infrastructure.

There's a bit about it in today's Irish Times online - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0717/1216073195174.html

MadsL

"We are currently examining whether the signs have been erected at each site in accordance with the conditions attaching to the grant of permission in each case."

JC Decaux have failed to comply with the planning condition for all of these signs requiring 100 billboards to be removed and documented, there was a one year timeframe to do this. It has now passed.

JC Decaux have failed to appoint an independent road safety auditor by public procurement process.

JC Decaux have failed in cases to abide by a planning condition prohibiting the reduction of the footpath below 1.8m (Mercer Street - Planning ref 1483/07) A similar location further down this street was withdrawn at the Oral Hearing after a senior Road Engineer confirmed it would not pass a road safety audit.

JC Decaux have failed to erect these signs where they would not impeded Traffic Lights. (Parnell St) 1505/07 1501/07

JC Decaux have failed to comply with the requirement to erect these signs where they would not impede pedestrian crossings (Camden St 1487/07)

Our man in Havana

MadsL wrote: »

JC Decaux have failed to comply with the planning condition for all of these signs requiring 100 billboards to be removed and documented, there was a one year timeframe to do this. It has now passed.

JC Decaux have failed to appoint an independent road safety auditor by public procurement process.

JC Decaux have failed in cases to abide by a planning condition prohibiting the reduction of the footpath below 1.8m (Mercer Street - Planning ref 1483/07) A similar location further down this street was withdrawn at the Oral Hearing after a senior Road Engineer confirmed it would not pass a road safety audit.

JC Decaux have failed to erect these signs where they would not impeded Traffic Lights. (Parnell St) 1505/07 1501/07

JC Decaux have failed to comply with the requirement to erect these signs where they would not impede pedestrian crossings (Camden St 1487/07)

Time to make a complaint to the planning authourity with a view to having an enforcement notice served on JC Decaux.

pvt.joker

OP....you seem to be taking this to extremes. You seem to be taking this as a personal insult to you. Why are you so bitter about a few signs?
Relax man....you'll give yourself a heart attack.

deep breaths

MadsL

OP....you seem to be taking this to extremes. You seem to be taking this as a personal insult to you. Why are you so bitter about a few signs?
Relax man....you'll give yourself a heart attack.

deep breaths

Deep breath before replying that's for sure......

...can't be bothered to reply to be honest, I think the vast majority of posters here 'get it' - but there is always one.

but in response.. take a good hard look at this photo and then ask yourself if you can't be bothered to send one email.....

pvt.joker

Oh...the famous photograph. Taken from the EXTREME left hand side of the road.
Actually its taken an angle that is actually off the road, and BEHIND the edge of the footpath.
If that was a car (even a car with a LHD steering wheel), they would see a LOT more than your cleverly manipulated photo is showing.

And Im not the only person with this point of view. Stekelly has made a similiar point, and I agree with him. Your deliberately making them look worse than they are.

MadsL

Time to make a complaint to the planning authourity with a view to having an enforcement notice served on JC Decaux

I agree and that's in process, but given that DCC benefit themselves, how objective is that. I've already highlighted a case (Lower rathmines Rd) where a dot on a pavement and a drawing of the sign (without location context) was enough for DCC to decide 'fair enough' and grant planning permission.

the scandalous issue is also how is it that a Council can pass a motion calling for all work to be stopped and then the city manager plows on regardless.

anyway

planningenforcement@dublincity.ie

The more mails - the more attention this will get. Remember to quote the planning reference and your address, You'll get a letter in the post in response. - if you need help PM me. Thanks

You'll get a letter in the post in response.

MadsL

Oh...the famous photograph. Taken from the EXTREME left hand side of the road.
Actually its taken an angle that is actually off the road, and BEHIND the edge of the footpath.
If that was a car (even a car with a LHD steering wheel), they would see a LOT more than your cleverly manipulated photo is showing.

And Im not the only person with this point of view. Stekelly has made a similiar point, and I agree with him. Your deliberately making them look worse than they are.

(sigh) That image is a zoom of this one I was standing in middle of the traffic lane!.




Happy now.

BlackWizard

Not really. I'd like a picture of you taking that picture, just to be sure.