Lansdowne Road Redevelopment Thread

[Risteard]

I don't see why were its ranking in the highest stadium in Europe league is relevant. It will either block their light or it won't but don't start this other crap. Eirebhoy, I am comforted by your tale of woe. Get any compensation for it? Of course that's what its all about, they'll want their nice wad of compo cash.

Exactly.

"They demanded to know why the new stadium will be higher than others with almost twice its capacity."
Why do they "demand" that?

[eirebhoy]

I don't see why were its ranking in the highest stadium in Europe league is relevant. It will either block their light or it won't but don't start this other crap. Eirebhoy, I am comforted by your tale of woe. Get any compensation for it? Of course that's what its all about, they'll want their nice wad of compo cash.

The only thing I got from them was a pair of ear plugs while I was working nights. I agree, all they're looking for is compensation. The only residents that are close enough to Lansdowne to complain about the height are those in Havelock square, even then its only going to 1 tier at the Havelock square end. Who is complaining about the height?

/edit - Oh, I see its the Shelbourne Road residents. They can go and jump. The height of the stadium won't effect them.

[Macy]

The Shelbourne Road Residents' Group said even though these stadiums are lower in height, they have much larger capacity for fans.

The nimbys - high at the sides to make up for being so low at either end because of the light issue. Hardly shocking that a hack from that rag didn't ask them about it though...

[thejollyrodger]

totally agree about it being all about the compo.

[Schumi]

The Shelbourne Road Residents' Group... demanded to know why the new stadium will be higher than others with almost twice its capacity.

Because it's being built on a smaller site, why do they think.

How will this impact on Shelbourne Road anyway? There's at least 100m between the stadium and Shelbourne Road. They're obviously just looking for free money.

[Duffman]

I don't know how relevant it is but I see the Camp Nou is listed in the not-so-high-for-its-capacity earlier in the thread. The guide on that stadium said that they couldn't go any higher without restructuring the whole ground for the 1982 World Cup so what they did was to dig out another tier on the inside, thereby effectively putting a 3rd tier in without the need for going up. Very clever I thought.

[pete]

The residents have 2 simple choices
- accept the stadium will be built there & get as much input in as they can or
- wait for developers to build apartments & offices which will mean more traffic on a daily basis.

It really is that simple.

[soccerc]

I don't see why were its ranking in the highest stadium in Europe league is relevant. It will either block their light or it won't but don't start this other crap. Eirebhoy, I am comforted by your tale of woe. Get any compensation for it? Of course that's what its all about, they'll want their nice wad of compo cash.

You have no right to natural light..........its a premise based on an old civil tort of the 18th century. So no compo

[eirebhoy]

I'd say 2 houses max would be effected by the height of the stadium. Give them a few grand each and tell the others to gtf.

[A face]

The residents have 2 simple choices

- accept the stadium will be built there & get as much input in as they can or
- wait for developers to build apartments & offices which will mean more traffic on a daily basis.

It really is that simple.

Jebus, it aint that hard a choice when you think about it ..... do the residents know that it boils down to just this ??

[pete]

You have no right to natural light..........its a premise based on an old civil tort of the 18th century. So no compo

Are you sure about that? I know you have no right to a view but did think some rights to light... not floodlights

[Superhoops]

I'd say 2 houses max would be effected by the height of the stadium. Give them a few grand each and tell the others to gtf.

I may be wrong, but somehow I cannot see this being the official response!!

[eirebhoy]

I may be wrong, but somehow I cannot see this being the official response!!

Well I'm sure they'll be told to gtf in a more polite way. The vast majority of those on Shelbourne Road won't be affected by the height of the stadium.

[TheJamaicanP.M.]

The height of the stadium shouldn't be a major concern. All the stakeholders were consulted throughout the design process. The design was altered to take account of fears over loss of light. I was looking at the photo montages submitted with the application and it is obvious that the stadium will not block light to houses on Shelbourne Road. The orientation of the sun means that the stadium structure can only restrict morning light. However, as it happens, Shelbourne Road is sufficient distance from the stadium, meaning that this will not be a problem. The only residents that have genuine grievances over sunlight are those living in the Havelock Square (north terrace) end of the ground. However, the stadium has been designed so that the roof drops considerably at the north end. The transparent roofing will allow sufficient light to reach these houses. Indeed, the new northern part of the stadium will actually be lower than the current walled north terrace, thereby offering a considerable improvement.

Its clear that local residents are trying to get the best deal they can. I am very confident that both Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanala will come to a favourable decision regarding the new stadium. The Environmental Impact Statement submitted with the application is fairly comprehensive. There's just over a week left for objections to be lodged with the Council. The decision of the planning authority will undergo a great deal of scrutiny so I would be expecting them to buy time with a Request for Further Information. In this regard, it is likely that the proposed demolition of a house on Shelbourne Road (think its no. 70?) to enlarge the existing pedestrian access, will emerge as a major issue.

Regardless of the final decision of Dublin City Council, the application will be subject to either a first party or third party appeals to An Bord Pleanala. Therefore, we should be prepared for a prolonged process.


In response to someone above who posted that the lower tier of the Nou Camp was cleverly "dug out", this method has been used for a few stadiums across the continent. Indeed, from what I remember of the Olympic Stadium in Barcelona where Espanyol play, the same technique was used. I heard that they considered doing something similar with the new Lansdowne. However, this would be a non-runner with Dublin City Council due to the proximity of the stadium to the sea. Believe it or not, rising sea level would be a concern for building the stadium at a lower level like the stadia in Barcelona.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Message to Shelbourne Road residents.... The IRFU HQ was there before you lot moved in. Get over it or FARQ off to some other area!

[Forever Dreamin]

Big and all as the stgadium might be, I guarantee the new offices and apartments on the Berkley Court site will be higher and that will get planning!
However I do believe that very generous compensation should be paid to all those living within 1 mile of the ground that moved into their houses before Lansdowne Road was first built in the late 19th century as they were there first all others can p*** off!!

[TheJamaicanP.M.]

Big and all as the stgadium might be, I guarantee the new offices and apartments on the Berkley Court site will be higher and that will get planning!
However I do believe that very generous compensation should be paid to all those living within 1 mile of the ground that moved into their houses before Lansdowne Road was first built in the late 19th century as they were there first all others can p*** off!!

I'm not sure many of those residents from the 19th century will still be alive.

[TheJamaicanP.M.]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet. Yesterday, Dublin City Council requested Further Information on over 40 issues regarding the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Road. The main issues include why the application is for a ten-year planning permission instead of five years. This won't be a problem however. Another issue concerns the viability of the transparent roof in the long-term. However, the main problem would appear to be with regard to ownership rights and particularly the failure to agree terms with Wanderer's Rugby Club.

Amazingly, the newspapers have failed to realise that Dublin City Council were a day late with their request for Further Information. Technically, this would allow for a default planning permission, meaning that development could go ahead without any decision from An Bord Pleanala. However, this is a legal route which I'm sure will not be pursued.

It's looking like next January before we get a final decision from An Bord Pleanala.

[Superhoops]

First murmurings of a delay. Article from todays Indo:

JOHN DRENNAN

THE proposed new national stadium in Lansdowne Road is in danger of turning into an even bigger disaster than the infamous "Ceaucescu-style" Bertie Bowl.

An interim Dublin City Council Planning Report, seen by the Sunday Independent, indicates that before a single digger has moved onto the site, the timetable for the construction is in serious trouble.

The Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company (LRSDC) initially expected construction proper to "commence in the first quarter of 2007, and to finish in the second quarter of 2009".

However, the city planners have thrown this schedule into disarray.

In its response to the initial plans, the Planning Office has sought an unprecedented 106 pieces of further information under 43 headings.

Some of the claims, which are detailed in the report under the heading "objections received and taken into account", are scathing about LRSDC's initial application.

A variety of objectors claim serious aspects of the planning application are "deficient", "unclear" and "misleading". This is centred around issues such as whether the translucent glass roof "will deteriorate and discolour with age".

There are concerns that, in this "residential area", the removal of asbestos will pose a "major health hazard".

It has also been claimed that "information deficiencies" mean "the current application is invalid" as "the new restaurants, bars, betting and conference facilities are a material change of use".

In its response to these concerns, the City Council Planning and Development Department has also raised other questions, such as "the archaeological potential" of the site, which may have a 17th Century mill on the grounds.

Possibly the most serious issue of all is the request by the council for further research into the benefits of constructing "a sunken stadium" where the pitch is lowered by up to six metres.

This position may be informed by the increase in height of the stadium from 32 metres to 48 metres, which has created fears among the residents around Lansdowne that they will be living in the shadow of a stadium which will be "as high as Liberty Hall", and that this may result in incidents of depression and Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD).

The huge price of constructing a sunken pitch is only one of a number of cost implications which the LRSDC now faces.

A senior planner has warned that "in the light of the requirement of the planning department for a vast amount of further information, the planning status of the application may not be regularised for two years".

It may even be necessary, "in the light of such information, to advertise afresh some or all of the elements of the proposed stadium".

Under such conditions, "an optimistic date for the granting of permission" would be late 2007.

However, since this has to be presented to An Bord Pleanala for final approval, "should this be granted, we will then be into 2008".

If "account is taken of the time factor in preparing amended contract documents resulting from the likely many additional conditions attached to the final approval and the process of tendering", demolition may not start until the middle of 2009.

This series of events will have serious political and sporting implications.

Sports Minister John O'Donoghue may secure the unwanted political legacy of presiding over the collapse of two proposed national stadiums, while any failure of the Lansdowne proposals will enhance the perception of government incompetence.

Any delay will have major consequences for the initial Lansdowne Road budget of €365m. Construction inflation and more complex planning conditions could add up to €200m to the final cost of the stadium.

Ironically, this will mean Lansdowne Road, which has only 60 per cent of the capacity as Abbotstown, will cost up to €200m more than the €360m Bertie Bowl.

This would have serious implications for the financial stability of the FAI and the IRFU, since the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and Mr O'Donoghue were quite clear that the Government's contribution of €191m was "final and absolute".

The fiscal implication of the report has raised the spectre that unless the Government reverses its position, Lansdowne Road will never happen, since the stakeholders will be faced with bankruptcy.

But the chances of government aid were summarised by one source who noted: "If you think, after the collapse of his Bertie Bowl dream, that Bertie Ahern is going to bail these guys out you can forget it. He must be rubbing his hands at this denouement."

The debacle will have serious ramifications for the FAI.

Its CEO John Delaney has claimed he was "certain we will be playing in Croke Park in March" and there was "nothing in the objections we did not envisage".

However, there may be even more serious inquests within the ranks of the GAA, whose contentious motion on Rule 42 agreed that "Central Council shall have the power to authorise the use of Croke Park" for soccer and rugby "during a temporary period when Lansdowne Road football ground is closed for the proposed development".

The FAI and IRFU application was accepted on the basis that Lansdowne Road would have to be closed in 2007.

However, opponents of lifting the ban will now be claiming that such a decision represents "a serious case of prematurity", since Lansdowne Road could now be available "for at least two and possibly three seasons ahead".

They will also argue that, even if planning permission is granted by 2009, the "many restrictions" on the construction will mean that it will stretch well beyond the allocated period of 27 months. That means that Croke Park may have to be available to the FAI and the IRFU until 2012, but such a timeframe was not advertised in the GAA congress vote.

[pete]

Old News, The architects were already given 6 months to respond & assuming that completed plenty of time for the planners to access before construction starts next year. Smells like a GAA agenda there...?