Planning board rules against cable cars over Liffey
- This topic has 6 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
A developer’s vision of cable cars gliding over the river Liffey between the Guinness brewery and Docklands has suffered a setback from An Bord Pleanála’s ruling that the project – dubbed “Suas” – does not qualify as strategic infrastructure.
-
It is a pity that BP have to waste time deciding on things like this. How on earth was this scheme ever going to qualify as “strategic infrastructure”?:mad:
-
Lets hope thats the end of that nonsense so.
-
Unfortunately it might not be the end.
@The Irish Times wrote:
Planning board rules against cable cars over Liffey
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
Cable car scheme was designed to carry sightseers at heights approaching 80 metres (264ft) above the River Liffey
Cable car scheme was designed to carry sightseers at heights approaching 80 metres (264ft) above the River Liffey
Photograph: The Irish TimesA developer’s vision of cable cars gliding over the river Liffey between the Guinness brewery and Docklands has suffered a setback from An Bord Pleanála’s ruling that the project – dubbed “Suas” – does not qualify as strategic infrastructure.
Last July, the Liffey Cable Car Company – controlled by developer Barry Boland – was among more than 50 applicants seeking to avail of a fast-track planning process by going directly to An Bord Pleanála, bypassing the local authorities.
This was provided for under the 2006 Strategic Infrastructure Act for projects deemed by the appeals board to fall into this category.
However the board has now decided that the proposed Liffey cable car scheme “is not strategic infrastructure”.
In line with the recommendation of a planning inspector who dealt with the case, it said an application should now be made to Dublin City Council – though the council’s planners, having seemed initially enthusiastic, have gone cool on the idea.
The cable car scheme was unveiled in February 2006. Conceived as a tourist attraction rather than a transport service, with the London Eye as its inspiration, it was designed to carry sightseers at heights approaching 80 metres (264ft) above the river Liffey. The €52 million project would involve erecting four giant steel towers – two of them significantly taller than Liberty Hall and the other two almost as high – along the three-kilometre route. Each cable car would have capacity for 25 people, at a fare of €15.
The towers, designed by architects McGarry Nà Éanaigh and engineers Roughan O’Donovan, were to be sited at Watling Street bridge, Wood Quay, Marlborough Street and Custom House Quay.
The longest span between them would be 930 metres.
“It’s a very strong idea that would make new connections in the city,” chief city planner Dick Gleeson said at the time. However, on closer examination, it is believed that the planners came to the conclusion that the towers would be too obtrusive.
Mr Boland said he did not see An Bord Pleanála’s ruling as a setback. “We now have a clear indication of the direction we should go and we look forward to engaging with the Dublin city planning authority with a view to lodging a planning application as soon as possible”.
After investing about €1 million in the project, Mr Boland added: “We’ve always felt that if the people of Dublin want us to build it, then we’re ready to do so and if they don’t, then we’ll put it in the bin. A planning application is the best way of establishing that.”
© 2007 The Irish Timeshttp://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/1106/1194222691521.html
“We now have a clear indication of the direction we should go”
😀 😀
Indeed you do.
-
“We’ve always felt that if the people of Dublin want us to build it, then we’re ready to do so and if they don’t, then we’ll put it in the bin. A planning application is the best way of establishing that.”
So why, may I ask, did you choose the Strategic Infrastructure route, if a) the opinions of the citizens of Dublin matter to you, and b) a planning application is the best method of proceeding?
Go away.
-
@Seamus O’G wrote:
“We now have a clear indication of the direction we should go”
😀 😀
Indeed you do.
Rofl 🙂
-
@Seamus O’G wrote:
“strategic infrastructure”?:mad:
Only in Ireland, Irish solution to Irish problem springs to mind – this in the same week we hear about delays with Transport 21, Jokers:
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
