Re: Re: A new Clarence Hotel re-development with destruction on Essex St., Temple Bar

Aye- iirc, there was a suspicion in some quarters that the AI questions for Lansdowne were approaching the forensic level, but here it seems the opposite is true- makes the job for DCC much easier. But surely any planning consultant worth his salt would be aware of the provisions regarding the demolition of a PS? Or did they think that DCC would just bend over backwards to accommodate them because of who they are? Surely not…
QUOTE]

Yes – I’m familiar with the RFI on Lansdowne – was very impressed at the time at how DCC grasped the project’s complexity and identified the right questions. But that application had been very carefully crafted and had foreseen all the likely issues and tried to head them off. It even advanced the ‘exceptional circumstances’ argument for the demolition of No. 70 Shelbourne Road – which was not a Protected Structure – because the locam Members (such an appropriate word!!) 😀 were threatening to list it to scupper the project.

Maybe there was a bit of a ‘Mainland’ influence in the Clarence application (I don’t know who handled the application – so no offence iontended to colleagues)?