Lansdowne Road Stadium
- This topic has 572 replies, 134 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I live in the Croke Park area whereby the vicinity is swarming with people in the Summer. which will change next year; as it will be swarming with people year long …I hate the way supporters piss in the doorways on my street.
I’ve bought my tickets for the Dubs playing under the new floodlights at night in Feburary. Lookin’ forward to it!
Croke Park Ltd. were very inclusive of the residents when they were planning and developing. They even signed a contract with the CPARA (Croke Park area Resdients Alliance) which detailed their commitments to cleansing, policing, parking and crowd control. All good stuff. (Bertie Ahern signed it)
Croke Park Ltd are no longer speaking to CPARA. The contract expired. They will not re-sign it and will not negotiate. Cpara were looking for the kind of relationship that the Arsenal Stadium provides the local community with. http://www.islington.gov.uk/Leisure/arsenal/LiaisonCommittee/ Croke Park Ltd. are having none of it.
Croke Park Ltd. has no obligation to talk to the community representative body. This is inappropriate as their revenue generation activities (games) cause the the residents major inconvenience. But as a business they know that CPARA want them to spend some of their profit limiting the detrimental impacts on the community.
The Landsdowne residents would be wise to demand long term contracts, with an obligation to renew & re-sign before the planning is permitted.
From what I understand the GAA worked very closely with local residents until these conditions expired and one must feel sympathy for the residents given the number of games held in Croke Park which are virtually on every wekend from May through October many of them double and even triple headers vis a vis Landsdowne Road where there are possibly 5 large games and 5 medium sized games over the course of the year.
An Bord have defered their decision due to the complexity of the issues
Board defers verdict on Lansdowne project
From:ireland.com
Friday, 23rd February, 2007An Bord Pleanála has deferred its decision on the plan to redevelop Lansdowne Road as a 50,000-seater stadium until March 22nd because of the complexity of issues raised by appellants.
Dublin City Council’s decision last August to approve the €350 million project was appealed to the board by more than 30 residents groups and individuals in the Ballsbridge area, close to the existing rugby grounds.
Their objections centred on the height and design of the stadium, inclusion of conference facilities, demolition of two houses, impact of construction work, additional traffic and a claimed fall in property values.
These issues were discussed at an oral hearing last December, and it had been anticipated the board would make its ruling by today, following receipt of the report and recommendations of the presiding planning inspector. But in a letter issued this week to all parties, including the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company (LRSDC), which is spearheading the largely Government-funded scheme, An Bord Pleanála said it needed more time.
Expressing regret over this delay, its letter referred to the continuing high volume in the intake of appeals. “In view of the delay involved in bringing this case to determination, priority consideration is being given to the case,” it added.
“Most cases are decided within a short period of their being formally considered for the first time at board level,” the letter explained. “A target date of before 22nd March, 2007, has now been set . . .”
The most controversial issue is the height of the proposed stadium which, at 48.5m (160ft), would make it 15m taller than Croke Park. Objectors claim this is due to the conference facilities.
It would be open to An Bord Pleanála to reduce the height, even though this would almost inevitably mean a reduction in the capacity of the stadium, or to order the omission of conference facilities.
The LRSDC was hoping to start preparatory work on the new stadium very shortly, and had indicated the Dart line would have to be closed for the Easter weekend to facilitate demolition of the west stand.
However, it is clear this ambitious timetable will have to be revised because of the delay in determining the planning appeals. The target date of completing the project by the end of 2009 may also be missed.
22.iii.07
An Bord Pleanála has deferred its decision on the plan to redevelop Lansdowne Road as a 50,000-seater stadium until March 22nd because of the complexity of issues raised by appellants.
That’s today’s date, right?
Any news?
@ctesiphon wrote:
22.iii.07
That’s today’s date, right?
Any news?
Yup. Today’s the day.
The Teddy Bears await the menu.
Must have been put in the post
Watch this space: Case No 218917
Tick tick tick…
Lansdowne Road revamp gets go ahead
Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:36
The redevelopment of Lansdowne Road has been given the green light after An Bord Pleanála rejected appeals against plans to revamp the stadium.The permission is subject to 23 conditions but the developers were granted almost exactly what both the FAI and IRFU would have hoped for.
There is no reduction in the proposed 50,000 all seater capacity or any restriction on any number of sporting events.
The Bord said three concerts could take place at the venue – the same number as allowed at Croke Park.
The inspector of the public hearing into the development had recommended against granting planning permission. However, the Bord decided not to take this recommendation due to the historical use of the land.
I’m sure more detail will follow
PVC King..
The inspector of the public hearing into the development had recommended against granting planning permission. However, the Bord decided not to take this recommendation due to the historical use of the land. (Quote)Notwithstanding the fact that I too welcome the decision, I am alarmed at the frequency that “The Board†overturn their own Inspectors.
The Planning & Development Act 2000 states that the Board shall consist of at least 7 members and that more can be added if the workload warrants.
😮 We now have the Board of ABP split into 3 x 3 member boardlets that decide on the future of this Country.
How many out there would like to face a Court with only 3 jury members?Great Stuff. To be honest I was taken aback by the vitriolic nature of the opposition to what is a use that was established long before the residents were even twinkles in the eyes of the D4 massive of yore. Maybe they can still tear down the West Stand over Easter. But remember one thing. This will be THE development in the city over the next decade. It will dwarf everything else. Already we can forget the Point tower, now this mornings old news. Feck the Port tunnel, the interconnector, IKEA. This arena will drag Irish sport into the 21st century (until 11 clowns get on the grass of course) and will glow like a beacon over Ballsbridge…
Jaysus just saw that the Inspector recommended refusal!!! WTF?? What was he thinking? Sometimes i believe that there’s some sort of arrangement between the Inspectors and the Bord, whereby the Inspector knows the decision, especially on high profile politically sensitive developments like this, and then writes what he likes, as some sort of sop to the appelants
@ctesiphon wrote:
[url]
*refresh*
*refresh
*refresh
🙂This decision really will refresh Irish Sport in general and Rugby in particular. With a venue of this size Leinster will hopefully be able to grow their crowd to make 5 – 10 profitable gates a season. Looking beyond the planning decision on this the ground needs to earn its corn and in comparison to concerts matches are far less disruptive due to their short duration.
In planning terms this is a great result for the wider city given that the only other option on the table was an edge city alternative at an unagreed scale. This was in my opinion the only real opportunity for a new stadium that was actually ever going to happen.
I feel a certain sympathy for the locals as they obviously put a lot of effort into their submissions. If the considerations were purely local you may have taken a different view of the scale of the venue. However the Bord obviously took a view in the context of the needs of the City and Country for a national stadium.
Any chance of Munster lending us your front 8 to get the stadium into the black?
@alonso wrote:
Maybe they can still tear down the West Stand over Easter.
…
This arena will drag Irish sport into the 21st century (until 11 clowns get on the grass of course)11? Is that five forwards and six backs? Oh hang on, you meant the other game…]Jaysus just saw that the Inspector recommended refusal!!! WTF?? What was he thinking? Sometimes i believe that there’s some sort of arrangement between the Inspectors and the Bord, whereby the Inspector knows the decision, especially on high profile politically sensitive developments like this, and then writes what he likes, as some sort of sop to the appelants[/QUOTE]
I’m a believer in the Board, but as time goes on I wonder more whether this isn’t ridiculously naive. I’d like not to think so, but the whole Inspector-Board dichotomy is getting harder to ignore. I should have put a few quid on this outcome. (What say ye on Ikea?:rolleyes: )PS PVCKing- will Leinster play in Lansdowne? The always entertaining Ryle Nugent refers to Donnybrook as ‘The Home of Leinster Rugby’- will it not always be so? I mean, if this decision has taught us nothing else, it’s that Irish rugby is motivated above all else by sentimental nostalgia.
I know it’s probably an issue surrounding site-footprint and permissable heights, but I really have a prob with the 50,000 capacity. Perhaps that’s fine for soccer internationals against lower-grade opponents (if there’s anyone left that’s lower-grade than us at the mo’) but for 6 nations rugby and autumn internationals it would appear that we’re building a stadium that’s half the size of what the public require.
@ctesiphon wrote:
PS PVCKing- will Leinster play in Lansdowne? The always entertaining Ryle Nugent refers to Donnybrook as ‘The Home of Leinster Rugby’- will it not always be so? I mean, if this decision has taught us nothing else, it’s that Irish rugby is motivated above all else by sentimental nostalgia.
I think Leinster will be playing most of their bigger home games in the RDS, capacity ca. 15-20,000, when it is redeveloped. At least until Donnybrook is redeveloped to a capacity of about 11-12,000.
I’m not sure I like the idea of incorporating that strip of land along the Dodder into the new development. I’m surprised that no alternative could be found to doing this.
ah ctesiphon, the cheek. well I’m off to Croker for the big game today so 11 clowns is certainly on today’s menu. I am beginning to question the Bord / Inspector relationship. I must do some research some time, but if there’s any correlation between this contradictory outcome and the politically sensitive nature of the development, then something stinks. I 100% predict the exact same outcome for IKEA. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever
They were originally hoping to bring down the west stand over the Easter bank holiday weekend, but the delay pervented this. Apparently they’ll be on site in 2 months. I don’t believe leave for a judicial review will be granted in this case either. And that’ll be that then. Another piece of our sporting legacy gone. In a decade the list will be Milltown, Lansdowne, Old Croker, Dalymount, possibly Tolka, and every golf course within 8 miles of O’Connell Street
just wathing the England U21 game at the new wembley….mother of God, that’s some place. There’s an awful lot of sporting history being made in 07. Rugby and Soccer at Croker, the mauling of England, the Cricket team in the world’s elite, wembley, and the falling of The Old Lady of Ballsbridge (battleaxe maybe?)
blimp, I disagree that there’s a bigger demand for rugby tickets than soccer. I don’t think there’s been a single competitive game that hasn’t sold out since 1986. And it’s the most played sport in Ireland (yes, even more than GAA)
Seamus, what’s goin on with the RDS? And the Dodder wlak is being expanded and upgraded as part of this so I wouldn’t see that as too big an issue tbh
I would agree that having the board ignore the inspector’s reccommendation is slightly worrying even if I agree with the outcome. However, from what I read in the newspaper, the Inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission was made solely on the basis of their opinion that the Irish Bottle site would be a more suitable location. I don’t have any particular knowledge of this aspect of the planning system but this seems extremely odd; surely the inspector’s remit was to concentrate purely on the proposal being evaluated?
In what way was the Ringsend site deemed “more suitable”? Did the inspector compile a report comparing the two sites in terms of commercial viability, ease of access, strategic development, etc.? In what way is the inspector qualified to pick an alternative “suitable” site for the proposed structure? If the inspector was able to recommend the Irish Bottle site, presumably the inspector must have evaluated it first. Did they also evaluate other locations like Abbotstown or a midlands site for example? If not, where did the choice of Ringsend come from?
To be blunt, it sounds like the inspector failed completely to conduct the appeal properly and, assuming the newspaper reports are correct, the board were correct in ignoring such an oddball and unprofessional recommedation from the inspector.
@alonso wrote:
I don’t believe leave for a judicial review will be granted in this case either. And that’ll be that then. Another piece of our sporting legacy gone. In a decade the list will be Milltown, Lansdowne, Old Croker, Dalymount, possibly Tolka, and every golf course within 8 miles of O’Connell Street
You’r joking?? Or are you seriously suggesting that the demolition of the existing Lansdowne Road Stadium is regrettable?
It may be part of our sporting legacy but then the Dublin slums were part of our architectural legacy.
The current structure has all the charm of a knacker’s yard and the proposed replacement is aesthetically and architecturally amazing (in my view).
It may or may not be too big for the site but it can hardly be worse (for our sporting heritage) than the existing yoke?
I don’t think that’s what alonso was suggesting at all, publicrealm. See his post (#112) above. I understood it more as marking the passing of one of the game’s great characters. Aah the memories, alonso, eh?
jimg-
afaik there was an assessment done by the development team of various other sites, including Ringsend. But I’m always suspicious of these things when they’re undertaken by the proponents of a development. An EIS also has a section on ‘Examination of Alternatives’, but this is more to do with finding the most appropriate use for a given site, to if I remember correctly. And again I suspect that this is often a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision made in advance. If the parameters are set correctly, the result will emerge in your favour.But it’s an interesting point you raise- that any application should be decided solely on its own merit. And based on the planning context for the area, the decision was probably theright one. FWIW, I’d have preferred to see it in Ringsend or the Docklands, with this site developed for housing &c., but I (grudgingly;) ) accept the decision. I think you’re being a bit harsh on the inspector, though. I can see how such a conclusion could be legitimately reached based on the evidence before him- in essence, if the analysis of alternative sites was part of the submission, then he was entitled to consider it. (I should check the Board’s www for more info, really.)
One other thing that caught my eye was the mention that the Board’s decision was based partly on the inclusion of the redevelopment of the stadium in the NDP. But didn’t the NDP only kick in in January of this year? And the oral hearing was before christmas? I understood that a case had to be determined in the context of the legislation, policy and regulations as they were at the time of its submission. (If I’m wrong, I’d appreciate correction.) And I don’t think it was in the previous NDP. So if you were looking for an indication of the desires of the government, you wouldn’t have to look very far.
It’s not in the same league as that office building on the Dodder bridge in Donnybrook obviously (wasn’t legislation on extending the life of PP written [allegedly?] specifically for that building?), but it certainly gave me pause for thought.
Or have I just been spending too much time on conspiracy theory websites?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
