Dublin Council's Proposed Billboards - Will it devalue my property?

ODS

Dublin City Council has done a deal with JC Decaux allowing them to erect 120 billboards around the city. I am concerned that this will devalue my property, as one is to be located right outside.

This following image is a photomontage by JCDecaux of one of the proposed developments, (although not the one due to be outside my premises):



70 of these to go up if scheme goes ahead - the one above would be at North Strand. Aside from this type, there are also due to be another 50 that would be the same size (but without the use) as bus shelters.

So my question is, how much devaluation will this cause to any property effected?

:mad:

Stephen P

ODS wrote:

Dublin City Council has done a deal with JC Decaux allowing them to erect 120 billboards around the city. I am concerned that this will devalue my property, as one is to be located right outside.

This following image is a photomontage by JCDecaux of one of the proposed developments, (although not the one due to be outside my premises):



70 of these to go up if scheme goes ahead - the one above would be at North Strand. Aside from this type, there are also due to be another 50 that would be the same size (but without the use) as bus shelters.

So my question is, how much devaluation will this cause to any property effected?

:mad:

Hi,
Have you got a link to an article or anything?

ronbyrne2005

If it is'nt affecting your quality of life (affecting the light your house receives etc) I would'nt be too worried about it .

Supercell

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

If it isn't affecting your quality of life (affecting the light your house receives etc) I would'nt be too worried about it .

Indeed, it seems that in bubble Ireland that houses no longer have utility value they just have monitory value.

OP if you take a breather and look at the housing market right now, your "investment" (which people used to call a home) then billboard signs are the very least of your monitory driven worries.

Victor

Possibly. I know of a shop where the sign is meant to go directly in front of the door. Potentially this means congection around the door and/or potential customer just not seeing the door and going elsewhere. The manager isn't too happy about it.

godtabh

I suppose no one want to live beside an eye sore that maybe were the op is coming from.

Wouldnt something like that require pp? If some object if you dont want it

Victor

kearnsr wrote:

I suppose no one want to live beside an eye sore that maybe were the op is coming from.

Wouldnt something like that require pp? If some object if you dont want it

They are currently going through the PP process.

godtabh

Victor wrote:

They are currently going through the PP process.

I didnt realise this.

If they are in the pp process then this is the time to object.

ODS

stephen p wrote:

Hi,
Have you got a link to an article or anything?

Theres a couple of articles and points about it on this forum, from post 20 onwards - http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5715

Re Planning Process - these eyesores were applied for during the Christmas period when everyone was busy or on holidays, and as such, the time by which objections could be accepted has long since passed.

I am concerrned not just by the immediate effect but also by virtue that the only places these are to be located is disadvantaged and working class areas, ie wherever these yokes go up they will declare an area to be disadvantaged as none are to be located in Ballsbridge Donnybrook or Rathgar. This can only stigmatise the value of adjacent properties. Have a look at these two maps for more - the 1st is a map for the larger billboards, while the 2nd is for the smaller bus-shelter size hoardings:

Smoggy

What do the red dots mark ? crime hot spots ?

godtabh

Smoggy wrote:

What do the red dots mark ? crime hot spots ?

I reckon where the bill boards are going to be

davidoco

If there were one of those outside my front door/garden at that height the local kids would have it covered in graffiti constantly. I’d imagine they would remove it after the 10th cleaning.

I wouldn’t be shouting at them to stop and I’d even keep sketch.

ODS

Just a quick reminder to any 3rd parties that have made objections - the deadline for many appeals to An Bord Pleanalla shuts Tuesday.

spurious

Despite the fact that it costs an ordinary citizen 210 euro to appeal the disgraceful permission Dublin City Council gave for these monstrosities, there are a number of people who are willing to put their hands in their pockets to try stop them.

There are a number of appeals going in to An Bord Pleanála about these. Unfortunately at 210 a pop, I doubt they are all being appealed.

ODS

spurious wrote:

Despite the fact that it costs an ordinary citizen 210 euro to appeal the disgraceful permission Dublin City Council gave for these monstrosities, there are a number of people who are willing to put their hands in their pockets to try stop them.

There are a number of appeals going in to An Bord Pleanála about these. Unfortunately at 210 a pop, I doubt they are all being appealed.

Unfortunately you are quite right re the amount being appealed; if you know of anybody who is prepared to fund an appeal please PM me as I am aware of a no. of cases that are appealable, but where the punative cost is simply beyond the means of the original objector :mad:

In the meantime there has been a piece in Phoenix which gives a fairly concise picture as to the rot that this all is...

Phoenix Magazine wrote:

COUNCILLORS BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE

A REMARKABLE row has emerged in Dublin City Council over a contract already agreed by officials with advertising firm, JCDecaux, in what has been described as a “free bike” scheme for Dublin: that is “free” in exchange for 120 billboard sites. So controversial is the scheme that denizens like Bertie Ahern – as a Drumcondra resident – has objected to it.

While media reports have concentrated on the bicycles, the real story is that councillors are outraged at the deal being already agreed by officials, with councillor Tom Stafford’s criticisms of the plan as a “terrible, terrible application” typifying representatives’ views.

Councillors were simply not aware of the scheme’s details – that is until 70 simultaneous applications to erect billboards was made by JCDecaux during December, with another 50 in January. These roadside units are to display adverts on one side, with “civic information” on the other – and all to be located on public footpaths.

Strangely there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment, nor a council motion selling public land – while councillors are also puzzled as to why, if the council is to be a beneficiary, that the applications were not addressed to Bórd Pleanála.

More interesting is that by virtue of the project being applied for as more than 120 individual applications, it would cost over €25 grand for total adjudication by the Bórd.

However, Executive Planning Manager Ciaran MacNamara has been busy at council meetings defending the “public realm enhancements”. Describing the proposed billboards as a “new departure for the industry”, MacNamara claims that along with the 500 rental bikes, the city will get 4 public toilets, “a family of way-finding signage”, and JCDecaux would reduce their current billboards by 25%.

Yet despite the contract having been already signed, MacNamara is refusing to release it to councillors on the basis it as “commercially sensitive” – with councillors now resorting to FOI requests.

Mr MacNamara also claims that “very few” objections had been received; maybe he didn’t see the one from Bertie Ahern, or from Tony Gregory, or the one from Councillor Larry O’ Toole. Councillor Tom Brabazon has been very busy getting in a dozen objections – while dozens of other interests have also objected, such as Dublin City Business Association whose members – Arnotts, Clerys, and Eason’s – have all filed objections.

Then there’s the Dublin Transportation Office’s submission regarding the 70 15-feet high “metropole” applications, which states “the DTO is totally opposed” as illuminated signage “is considered to be a safety hazard”.

Now councillors have begun to do their own sums regarding the advertising revenue potential; Tom Stafford estimated €13 million per annum – which over the 15 year terms is over €200 Million; i.e. enough to buy 2 million bikes...

Anybody feel as if they have been taken for a ride?

* * *

ODS

There are hearings into this next week in An Bord Pleanalla - over 2 dozen are under appeal. Since last posting, we received an auctioneer's opinion as to what effect this would have on our property. The auctioneer has said that in the metropole development would devalue the property as it would obscure the business to such extent that it would be "catastrophic to the company's passing trade".

This is an absolute disgrace - that a local authority would be involved in developments that will damage the value of other properties. What's worse is that we know other owners who only found out after the appeals deadline - they are horrified + outraged. Does anybody else know anybody in this position?




Fucking Dublin City Council - I'm going to lift the heads off councillors next time they come round my door :mad:

stovelid

I agree with the post that said if it doesn't affect your quality of life, it's unlikely to affect that of another buyer.

As regards property values, I think home owners (me included) have a bit more to worry about than billboards at the moment.

Bee

ODS wrote:

There are hearings into this next week in An Bord Pleanalla - over 2 dozen are under appeal. Since last posting, we received an auctioneer's opinion as to what effect this would have on our property. The auctioneer has said that in the metropole development would devalue the property as it would obscure the business to such extent that it would be "catastrophic to the company's passing trade".

This is an absolute disgrace - that a local authority e - they are horrified + outraged. Does anybody else know anybody in this position?


Fucking Dublin City Council - I'm going to lift the heads off councillors next time they come round my door :mad:

You actually sound surprised that the joke DCC "would be involved in developments that will damage the value of other properties. What's worse is that we know other owners who only found out after the appeals deadline"

They do this all of the time with anti motorist infrastructure. When it goes ahead I would applaud any direct action taken against these new eyesores.

Can of petrol anyone?

Victor

Bee wrote:

Can of petrol anyone?

While such emotions can be understandable, any such action is not acceptable.

Advocating or counselling violence is not acceptable.