JC Decaux signs - take extra care

MadsL · 11-07-2008 11:29pm

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

I like it

Great vid. did you make it?

4 hours of tracking down these things...3 hours editing. Sorry its a bit rough.

Steve · 11-07-2008 11:48pm

MadsL wrote: »

4 hours of tracking down these things...3 hours editing. Sorry its a bit rough.

Not rough at all, it gets the point across with conviction - you have my support.

gixerfixer · 12-07-2008 11:53am

Jesus.Only seen or heard about this now.Absolutly shocking stuff.Lost for words really:eek:

MadsL · 12-07-2008 1:36pm

This just breaks ALL the rules....criminal.

Pedestrian stepping out

Motorist view of left turn - oncoming traffic view is blocked

Footpath width reduced

Planning conditions broken

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 (advertising display panel). 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.

NOT DONE

8) The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Roads Department:
a)The proposed structure shall not impede 70X3m vehicular sight lines.

Anyone help with this - im not an engineer but this sightline envelope looks big...anyone? I'm sure this is breached.

b)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.

c)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).

d)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.

THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE!

e)If at any stage it is required by the Road Authority that the sign shall be relocated or removed, it shall be, at the applicants expense and at no cost to the Local Authority. Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and development of the area

Full licence for DCC to remove these signs - keep the pressure on folks!

eringobragh · 12-07-2008 1:46pm

:eek: Fookin Hell Madsl your a man on a mission :pac:

Hats off...If i spot any i'll be sure to take a few pics

Digital camera in pocket today!!!!

MadsL · 12-07-2008 1:48pm

Eoin Madden of the Road & Traffic Dept at the An Pleanála Oral Hearing said that a sign further down this street outside BDO Simpson Xavier building would not pass a safety audit. It was withdrawn. This sign is placed in the same way next to the kerb.

Pedestrian steps out from behind sign...notice she is looking LEFT - the danger is from the RIGHT! also notice the road bends to the left further down...emergency vehicles at speed (garda for example) view of peds crossing the street further down will also be impaired.

Footpath with here is now only 150cm

c)The proposed structure shall not impede pedestrian desire lines or reduce footpath width below 1.8m, absolute minimum.

MadsL · 12-07-2008 1:54pm

Fookin Hell Madsl your a man on a mission

Hats off...If i spot any i'll be sure to take a few pics

Digital camera in pocket today!!!!

Thanks, don't forgot to send an email.....

Cllr Diathi Doolan stuck his head up to defend these against me on liveline yesterday. He hasn't seen them yet he admitted :rolleyes: :eek: I offered to take him on a tour.

His contact details;

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

Send him a text or a mail

Rory123 · 12-07-2008 1:59pm

Did anyone email D'arcy at Today FM? He's mad into the road safety... and as a cyclist himself he is the man to contact!

MadsL · 12-07-2008 2:04pm

Did anyone email D'arcy at Today FM? He's mad into the road safety... and as a cyclist himself he is the man to contact!

Go for it....:D
mail him - he can contact me at no.to.decaux@gmail.com

Rory123 · 12-07-2008 2:46pm

Done, did and done again. He likes to get involved in issues like this.

lostexpectation · 15-07-2008 1:33pm

is that a takeaway on richmond hill?

who want something like that stuck awkwardly in front of their shop?

you can keep an eye on mercer? street here

http://www.dublintraffic.com/Site0Camera48.jpg
where are you getting the planning rules from, i tried to find something about the distances for unobstrcuted views of traffic lights?

MadsL · 15-07-2008 1:42pm

My video comments with the soundtrack of Liveline on Friday, two councillors appear to defend these and Mannix Flynn gives them a roasting;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDJXQKkTobk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSo89H_EooI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQEbzC5tYFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVNFyf30YNA

My introduction to the situation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDJXQKkTobk

Daithi Doolon for the defence (I have added background info and corrections)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSo89H_EooI

Mannix Flynn gets exercised....(

listen for the 'you're no pal o'mine' comment

)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQEbzC5tYFo

Final part (I was dropped for some reason and not allowed the final comment)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVNFyf30YNA

lostexpectation · 15-07-2008 1:50pm

have you not had contact with the doolan or any of the other councillors since,

there main arguement was that they taking down other billboards but i don't why they prefer ones right on the pathway to ones stuck up on the sides of buildings.

MadsL · 15-07-2008 1:54pm

No contact from them anyway...although my contact details are with Liveline's researchers. PM me if you would like to help with the next steps.

markpb · 15-07-2008 2:55pm

Have to laugh when he says he's very excited about losing 100 large sheet adverts. He didn't mention that most of those are illegal since they have no planning permission anyway. If the planning enforcement department did their job...

MadsL · 15-07-2008 3:39pm

I didn't get a chance to pull him up on that (I'll be annotating the parts 3 & 4 later tonight).

It's now 50 billboards they have agreed to remove; (see how this deal keeps shrinking)

Anyway, I cannot see how these have had a safety audit...I simply don't believe Daithi that this was done for each of them. In some cases the planning site map was just a red dot on a map. These were rammed through planning (we even had the remains of a refusal left on the website in Smithfield - but management clearly overruled the planner)

Keep texting and mailing!

mike65 · 15-07-2008 4:06pm

Good discussion (for common sense), bad for DCC.

Mike.

spurious · 15-07-2008 4:11pm

It's great to see the reaction now, but a terrible pity it had to wait until the bloody things went up.
If only a few more people had objected (and appealed) at the planning stages we probably could have stopped them all.

lostexpectation · 15-07-2008 4:28pm

MadsL wrote: »

I didn't get a chance to pull him up on that (I'll be annotating the parts 3 & 4 later tonight).

It's now 50 billboards they have agreed to remove; (see how this deal keeps shrinking)

so the other illegal ones will stay up?

i dunno embarrassing them into action is the only way to do it, you not gonna beat by spending your money or chasing their rules

MadsL · 15-07-2008 5:11pm

It's great to see the reaction now, but a terrible pity it had to wait until the bloody things went up.
If only a few more people had objected (and appealed) at the planning stages we probably could have stopped them all.

Couldn't agree more, but to be honest they were well buried. The site notices were just yet another planning application notice on a wall nearby. Most of them went in the week before Christmas.

Scandalous that there was no Environmental Impact Assessment and no Public Consultations.

It's not like anyone was asked did they want these feckin things.

Text or email your councillors and the city manager. Make your voice heard.

MadsL · 15-07-2008 7:53pm

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

mike65 · 15-07-2008 8:21pm

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 · 15-07-2008 8:43pm

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 · 15-07-2008 8:49pm

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 · 15-07-2008 8:54pm

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 · 16-07-2008 8:42am

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 · 16-07-2008 6:09pm

Featured on Six One news now.....

nialler · 16-07-2008 6:41pm

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 · 16-07-2008 8:02pm

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 · 16-07-2008 9:13pm

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

lostexpectation · 16-07-2008 9:29pm

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

Jemmy · 16-07-2008 9:35pm

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 · 16-07-2008 9:50pm

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 · 16-07-2008 9:53pm

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 · 16-07-2008 10:36pm

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 · 16-07-2008 10:42pm

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 · 16-07-2008 10:54pm

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 · 17-07-2008 12:09am

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 · 17-07-2008 12:13am

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 · 17-07-2008 9:36am

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 · 17-07-2008 11:06am

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 · 17-07-2008 2:12pm

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 · 17-07-2008 2:28pm

"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 · 17-07-2008 4:45pm

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 · 17-07-2008 4:47pm

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 · 17-07-2008 4:54pm

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 · 17-07-2008 4:57pm

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 · 17-07-2008 5:00pm

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 · 17-07-2008 5:02pm

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 · 17-07-2008 5:07pm

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

JC Decaux signs - take extra care

Comments