Lansdowne Road Stadium

@ctesiphon wrote:

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.

Ok fair enough. I didn’t consider that an evaluation of the alternatives might have been part of the submission. The newspaper article almost gave the impression that the inpsector went off on a solo run and that the Ringsend site was a personal preference.

Still seems a very odd ‘though that a submission like this has to include alternatives; as you say, you’d have to be suspicious. Couldn’t the LRSDC have simply included three “alternatives”, like for example: bulldozing Trinity and locating it there, building it in the middle of the Burren or building it in a huge glass dome under the Irish sea? :confused: What’s the point?

no no public realm, i was just being nostalgic. All those grounds are/were decrepit and dated.But to compare Lansdowne road to a knacker’s yard is extremely unfair…. I mean I’ve seen old clips of Steptoe and Son, and you wouldn’t want that poor horse Hercules (thanks Google) to have to stand in the North Terrace on a November evening watching that sh1te we saw yesterday would you??

I must say I was surprised at the Inspector’s reasoning. Although an examination of alterntives forms part of the EIS, it’s technically impossible to use this to conclude that one of them is better, because the information will obviously not be there to base your decision on. The EIS will always claim that the proposed development is the best alternative.

There was a huge amount of work over the years on the location of stadiums in Dublin. Alternatives included Eircom Park at Fortunestown, Bertie Bowl at Abbotstown, a site in Neilstown, just Croker alone, Lansdowne, North Docks, and IGB. It fell heavily to Lansdowne but Bertie pushed on with his lunacy of a scheme.

jimg, just in response to your question on alternatives: They have to be feasible and not just frivolous or unrealistic. Although like in retail planning, it can be skewed and usually is. But in this case, I seem to recall, it was a fairly standard job in this regard.

Also on the Inspector’s overall conduct in the appeal, I doubt if he was anything less than thorough and professional. However, as suggested earlier, his reasoning was outside the remit of the planning process. It’s akin to refusing an extension coz it would work better on the house next door. It’s a nonsense and a sop to the locals. I look forward to reading his explanation for this. I believe he acted outisde his remit. I could be wrong but think about it; You own land, you apply for planning. it fulfils all legal and policy requirements. And you get refused because another site, which doesn’t fulfil any of the legal and policy requirements such as zoning and ownership, is more suitable for your development? That’s what he was saying.

i thought the stadium was being turned to utilise the back pitch tuborg ?
i agree about capacity, 65k would have been more appropriate, not sure if it was possible on this site though …

I’m sure the granting of a box would get the replacment buses from Sandymount to Barrow Street rolling anytime they want!!!!

I think the fact that Landsdowne RFC control the backpitch which gives them very lucrative bar recipts and nowhere to go put paid to the rotation. In an ideal world the stadium would have rotated and been sunk like an San Siro.

With this stadium now a reality I don’t see the need for a revamped Donnybrookas surely it is too small for competive games such as juicy ERC or a Munster match but is like an SCT mid week schools semi at Landsdown I.e. A loser financially. I say leave Donnybrook for Schools and until or if ever the Magniers league takes off properly with atteractive gates transferred to HQ.

What’s The point?
One of your correspondents ask why the Inspector seemed to suggest another site rather than Lansdowne Road.
I don’t believe An Bord Pleanala should ever refuse an application because “there is a better site” for a national facility as you are now definitely into the realm of politics. In this case the Government had already indicated that they were prepared to put money into Lansdowne Road, nothwithstanding some of their earlier preferences for Abbottstown. These debates (on the relative merits of a stadium location) should be set aside once a commitment is given. Unless of course there is a case for a bigger stadium which is not dependent on Government money for day to day financing!
😀

€100 million??

@PVC King wrote:

If Bertie didn’t go off on his Abbotstown disaster this Stadium could have been built by now. €100m plus wouldn’t have been wasted on a now abandoned flight of fancy.

I am having problems understanding how there isn’t space for a rotation given that a rugby pitch is 100m long and 50m wide. I know the North terrace is tight but surely a 50m gain would address the deficet?

I thought that sports stadia / pitches etc had to be aligned on an east – west axis ?

@ctesiphon wrote:

It was always the intention to keep the back pitch, Peter (not sure who owns it, Tuborg). The new orientation will be the same as the old. Had they turned it 90 degrees, the capacity could have been higher. Perhaps closer to the 65,000 suggested, or possibly more. But as you say, it probably wasn’t possible on this site (with this orientation), which makes me wonder if it might have been possible at another site…

Actually, they originally produced a plan for a 65,000 seater stadium incorporating the back pitch, but decided against it. The IRFU owns the back pitch and Lansdowne have a tenancy agreement that runs out in a few years’ time. The IRFU made the claim that this is an “unbreakable” agreement, but I don’t think anybody really buys that.

They just want more tickets & a corporate suite (they have one of the tudor style pavillions adjoining the west stand) – Boo to Wanderers I say for holding things up

I read last week that Wanderers settled this with the IRFU before taking a pasting by Bruff on Saturday

Decision expected on Lansdowne land
From ireland.com06:24Monday, 30th April, 2007
Dublin City Council will decide today whether to give the developers of the 50,000-seater Lansdowne Road stadium a half-acre strip of land essential for the construction of the stadium.

An extraordinary meeting of the council’s south east area committee has been called today under pressure from the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company (LRSDC) which needs an urgent decision on the land to allow building to get under way.

LRSDC requires the closure of the Dart for two weekends to allow for demolition and construction work. Under an agreement reached with Iarnród Éireann these closures can only take place on two bank holiday weekends when the service is at its least busy.

LRSDC had initially targeted the St Patrick’s Day and Easter weekends for the work, but was not granted planning permission for the stadium in time. Bord Pleanála finally granted permission on March 22nd last.

The proposal to transfer the land, which is a section of the River Dodder walkway, to LRSDC must be agreed by the councillors from the southeast area and then ratified by the full council.

The proposal was put before the south east area committee at its last monthly meeting on April 2nd, however they decided to defer the decision to their next meeting on May 14th, because LRSDC had not negotiated a compensation package for residents living nearest the stadium.

The deferral would have meant that the decision could not be ratified by the full council until its meeting on June 7th, causing LRSDC to miss the May and June bank holidays, and making the August and October weekends the earliest possible opportunities for the construction work

Decision time for DCC do they back the locals a couple of weeks before a general election or secure the viability of the leisure component of the local rates base?