U2 Joshua Tree Tour 2019
· Night 40 setlist for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 2/3/2024
· Night 12 setlist for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 25/10/23
· Night 10 & 11 setlists for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 20/10/23 & 21/10/23
· Night 9 setlist for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 18/10/23
· Night 6, 7, & 8 setlists for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 11/10/23 - 14/10/23
· Night 5 setlist for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 08/10/23
· Night 4 setlist for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 07/10/23
· Night 3 setlist for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 05/10/23
· Night 2 videos for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 30/09/23
· Night 2 setlist for U2:UV at the Sphere, Las Vegas, 30/09/23
read more...
|
|
Edge denied planning permission
Posted on Saturday, October 20 @ 04:46:37 CEST by Macphisto
-----------------------------------------------
(Irish Times) -- There is a down side to living in Dublin's most exclusive suburb of Dalkey, as U2 guitarist The Edge has just discovered.
His efforts to build a two-storey extension to his cottage home on Vico Road have been shot down by An Bord Pleanála, which said the development "would interfere with views of special amenity value". The 40-year-old musician received planning permission in his own name, David Evans, from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council last January to construct a two-storey dwelling house with domestic garage on the site of his Sorrento Cottage.
The building was to incorporate the existing two-storey cottage and involve the demolition of an existing single-storey extension, conservatory and garage.
Following an appeal by An Taisce, however, the planning board refused the development, principally on the grounds that it would "contravene materially" the provisions of the County Development Plan.
In its published decision, the board said the cottage was located in a scenic coastal, conservation area, which was designated "0/0" in the plan.
Under this category, planning authorities should not normally allow an increase in the number of buildings, nor normally permit major extensions.
The board said it considered the proposed development, which would add 549 sq metres of construction to a retained portion of the existing house of 185 sq metres, "would be out of character with the pattern of development in the area, would seriously injure the amenities of the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area".
It added that the development would be "visually intrusive" by reason of its scale and design, incorporating extensive areas of flat roof and glazing. It also required a sewage sump pit.
|
|
|