Major Infrastucture Planning Failures

MadsL

Today ABP once again overturned Dublin City Council's approval of Liberty Hall's redevelopment. Dublin City Council once again wide of the mark when it comes to major planning in the capital.

Is it time for a central body to take over major planning decisions from a clearly incompetent council? I feel that given the history of DCC's failures, that time has come.

antoobrien

MadsL wrote: »

Today ABP once again overturned Dublin City Council's approval of Liberty Hall's redevelopment. Dublin City Council once again wide of the mark when it comes to major planning in the capital.

Is it time for a central body to take over major planning decisions from a clearly incompetent council? I feel that given the history of DCC's failures, that time has come.

Considering construction started in 1961 - before regulated planning, what do you expect?

No they should have to live with the post modern monstrosity (and Busarus).

Scortho

For some liberty hall is a dublin landmark! For others it's a gross monstrosity destroying the area it's located in! Having seen photos of of the site, when it had its original glass it was actually really nice. However the reflective glass makes it look horrible!
what they could do is do an overhaul of the entire facade and make it more visually appealing.
We should look to the likes of Paris and build our high rises beyond the custom house! A clear distinction between old and new works well! Mix and match unfortunately doesn't unless extra effort is put in! This can be seen on Kildare st. The modern facade of the nli works well with that of the surrounding red bricks. The government buildings across the street, don't! You can have modern without destroying the integrity of the area!

ardmacha

No they should have to live with the post modern monstrosity

Liberty Hall is hardly "post" modern and Busaras is a not a monstrosity.

frankosw

Liberty hall is a bit shabby but there's nothing of any significance next to it to make it look even more shabby.

Whats that godawfull place on nassau st across from the dental hospital? Its a modern monstrosity in an area famous for its Gerorgian buildings.

jmayo

I would readily agree to it's demolition particularly if the primary tenants/owners were left inside it.

BTW can anyone tell me how the poor union were planning on funding the new development ?

Maybe jack o'connor was taking a pay cut to help fund it ?

MadsL

An Taisce called for an independent regulator to be appointed to investigate the planning function of Dublin City Council.

Charles Stanley-Smith, communications officer and former chair of the trust, said the refusal of the Liberty Hall application was on the same grounds as that of the Mater site proposal for the National Children’s Hospital earlier this year.

“This decision again raises the wider question as to why Dublin City Council is found to have once again breached its own development plan and national policy and the lack of an independent investigation thereof,” said Mr Stanley-Smith.

“An Taisce is now seeking an independent planning regulator to undertake this investigation and to extend it into the city council’s endorsement of the failed National Children’s Hospital and Liberty Hall plans.

“It is a waste of time and scarce resources for major applications to be processed through the planning system, if they are then overturned because they are found to be in breach of local and national policy.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1116/breaking16.html

DCC seem utterly incapable of handling major projects. Time for a central planning agency in my view to handle anything with a budget over, say, 2-3 million.

MadsL

So in this past week we have seen the massive cost overruns and mismanagement of the Poolbeg incinerator project and the official scrapping of the O’Devaney Gardens redevelopment project.

An audit of the Poolbeg Incinerator project has criticised Dublin City Council for spiralling costs now totalling over €80 million. The report from the local government auditor found that project management was "weak" and "not adequate".

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1203/dublin-poolbeg-incinerator.html

http://www.thejournal.ie/o-devaney-gardens-scrapped-694646-Dec2012/

City Manager John Tierney has apologised for the shortcomings.

How does this man keep his job? Planning failure after planning failure, and now this?

Fine Gael councillor Gerry Breen compared the controversy to the Greyhound contract and said council management seemed incapable of public procurement. Fianna Fáil councillor Mary Fitzpatrick called for an independent inquiry, while Labour councillor Dermot Lacey said the Poolbeg project should be scrapped.

In my view it is now time for a Dublin Area planning authority to take on million euro plus projects and get DCC's incompetent fingers out of the planning of Dublin's infrastructure, as they have shown no ability to manage either the planning process nor the strategic planning.

Sponge Bob

The Poolbeg project was continually obstructed by Green Minister Gormley and his 'special advisers' when he was minister for the Environment. Very hard for a council to 'progress' a project when the minister is against it. I trust you will give out equally about Gormley and his coterie who were not prepared to work to honour a contract signed by the Corpo.

Nor was the Corpo responsible for Bernard McNamara being the most overborrowed individual in the state ( bar Seán Quinn) and then running out of cash.

Anyway they planned and install 2 Calatrava bridges and Cork has no Calatrava bridge, that is a big result and fair play to Dublin Corporation.

Sponge Bob

The Biggest Infrastructure failure is the ridiculous situation in Mayo where a major Gas project will have been 10 years under construction by the time it is delivered. Uniquely every stakeholder in this shambles is at fault.

The Corrib Gas scheme is our biggest infrastructural failure and coming second behind that is the non completion of the Cork to Galway Motorway leaving far too much substandard road between many of our most important cities.

Dart Underground would probably be the third largest failure and Metro North the fourth.

I do not believe that Liberty Hall is INFRASTRUCTURE by any stretch of the imagination.

Gumbo

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I do not believe that Liberty Hall is INFRASTRUCTURE by any stretch of the imagination.

+100

MadsL

My point is that DCC have again and again show that they are incapable of planning the city when it comes to major planning decisions; numerous overturned decisions testify to that.

Here's a list from 2009 of 19 decisions by ABP which according to An Taisce "collectively constitute an astonishing indictment of the credibility and competence of Dublin City Council."

Whilst I fully accept the Gormley delays but he's been gone almost two years now, the Auditor describes the project management team for being "weak" and "not adequate".

This comes after numerous recent failures in planning infrastructure and services. The Children's Hospital planning disaster, The abandoned flood defence scheme, the Greyhound fiasco, to name but three recent examples.

DCC cannot even renovate and run swimming pools even after getting 600k in funding.

The only thing that they seem good at is producing 'aspirational' policy documents, the latest of which waxes lyrical about "The Civic Spine of the Public Realm" branching out from O"Connell St.

Again, how the fuck does Tierney keep his job at €189,301 a year plus allowances?

AlekSmart

MadsL wrote: »

My point is that DCC have again and again show that they are incapable of planning the city when it comes to major planning decisions; numerous overturned decisions testify to that.

Again, how the fuck does Tierney keep his job at €189,301 a year plus allowances?

:eek: And Mr T still can't put a few Street Lights on Westmoreland St......:o......Is he waitin for a bonus I wonder ??

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

My point is that DCC have again and again show that they are incapable of planning the city when it comes to major planning decisions; numerous overturned decisions testify to that.

Again you are pointing out local planning issues. Other than the National Childrens Hospital ( cleared by Cabinet before it went into planning) all of the projects you describe are not infrastructure.

Bin Collection (Viz Greyhound mentioned myriad times) is NOT Infrastructure by any manner of means. Housing is not infrastructure by any catholic definition of same.

Arguably the worst thing that ever happened to Infrastructure planning was the designation of An Taisce as a statutory body for planning consultation. That right should be restricted to Aesthetic Observations only.

And if An Taisce is somehow in favour of retaining the current Liberty Hall (whether by accident or by design/policy/design ) I frankly despair of their competence. It is an eyesore.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Arguably the worst thing that ever happened to Infrastructure planning was the designation of An Taisce as a statutory body for planning consultation. That right should be restricted to Aesthetic Observations only.

And if An Taisce is somehow in favour of retaining the current Liberty Hall (whether by accident or by design/policy/design ) I frankly despair of their competence. It is an eyesore.

I'm sorry but that is utter bollocks. An Taisce opposed the redevelopment as proposed by SIPTU, that's not the same as arguing for it's retention. Please don't misrepresent.

An Taisce pretty much saved the country HUGE amounts of money in the form of bailouts by actively opposing some of the worst excesses of the Celtic Tiger - at one point DCC even thought a cable car down the Liffey and an L-shaped overhanging building over the Liffey were projects that it should grant planning permssion to.

Not too many come out of the Tiger years covered in glory, but An Taisce consistantly and repeatedly warned about what was happening in granting permissions too liberally, about wanton vanity high-rise permisions (Sean Dunne in Ballsbridge for instance) and the consequences of overdevelopment.

They were utterly vilified for it at the time, now if you are not man enough to admit that at least part of what they were saying about over development at the time was absolutely spot on then I can't help you.

As far as infrastructure is concerned both the incinerator and the hospital are regional if not national infrastructure. I think it clear that DCC cannot be trusted with either, add that to local failings and their role as planning authority for major projects should, in my view, be removed.

An Taisce are the only thing that Ireland has to ensure LAs adhere to their Development Plans - DCC have constantly breached theirs in giving permissions to their favourite pet developers - including McNamara who eventually screwed them.

Scortho

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Biggest Infrastructure failure is the ridiculous situation in Mayo where a major Gas project will have been 10 years under construction by the time it is delivered. Uniquely every stakeholder in this shambles is at fault.

The Corrib Gas scheme is our biggest infrastructural failure and coming second behind that is the non completion of the Cork to Galway Motorway leaving far too much substandard road between many of our most important cities.

Dart Underground would probably be the third largest failure and Metro North the fourth.

I do not believe that Liberty Hall is INFRASTRUCTURE by any stretch of the imagination.

It was originally meant to cost 800 million. Its now estimated to have a final cost for shell and its partners of 3 billion.
Nice one Ireland....theres another 2.2 billion that we would have had in tax but for all the hmming and hawwing and moaning and "its not your oil, its my oil" brigade!

MadsL

Scortho wrote: »

It was originally meant to cost 800 million. Its now estimated to have a final cost for shell and its partners of 3 billion.
Nice one Ireland....theres another 2.2 billion that we would have had in tax but for all the hmming and hawwing and moaning and "its not your oil, its my oil" brigade!

I'm not sure you understand how corporation tax works.

Sponge Bob

It does not matter 'how corporation tax works' as you say.

Converting an €800m Infrastructure Project into a €3bn project through myriad planning failures (on all sides) is what matters. The M50 was barely open along its ful length when a €1bn widening project had to be initiated c 2006 to deal with what was foreseeable future congestion.

An Taisce were part of that mess of course, but they bottled out of the court case about a year ago.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It does not matter 'how corporation tax works' as you say.

Converting an €800m Infrastructure Project into a €3bn project through myriad planning failures (on all sides) is what matters. The M50 was barely open along its ful length when a €1bn widening project had to be initiated c 2006 to deal with what was foreseeable future congestion.

An Taisce were part of that mess of course, but they bottled out of the court case about a year ago.

Again you are misrepresenting massively An Taisce position's - An Taisce settled the court case after the State offered to settle and gave a "commitment from the Government to complete outstanding legislative transposition and to engage directly with An Taisce to address compliance with European Environmental Law. "

The State's failure to address European Environmental Law was the heart of the case, and not as many other campaigners seemed to feel, to somehow 'stop Shell'. An Taisce always maintained an ambivalent stance on Corrib extraction.

Why do you persist in misrepresenting their position to somehow (in your mind) suit your argument.

The thread is about DCC's failures, not An Taisce's successes in court.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is utter bollocks. An Taisce opposed the redevelopment as proposed by SIPTU, that's not the same as arguing for it's retention. Please don't misrepresent.

An Taisce pretty much saved the country HUGE amounts of money in the form of bailouts by actively opposing some of the worst excesses of the Celtic Tiger - at one point DCC even thought a cable car down the Liffey and an L-shaped overhanging building over the Liffey were projects that it should grant planning permssion to.

Not too many come out of the Tiger years covered in glory, but An Taisce consistantly and repeatedly warned about what was happening in granting permissions too liberally, about wanton vanity high-rise permisions (Sean Dunne in Ballsbridge for instance) and the consequences of overdevelopment.

They were utterly vilified for it at the time, now if you are not man enough to admit that at least part of what they were saying about over development at the time was absolutely spot on then I can't help you.

As far as infrastructure is concerned both the incinerator and the hospital are regional if not national infrastructure. I think it clear that DCC cannot be trusted with either, add that to local failings and their role as planning authority for major projects should, in my view, be removed.

An Taisce are the only thing that Ireland has to ensure LAs adhere to their Development Plans - DCC have constantly breached theirs in giving permissions to their favourite pet developers - including McNamara who eventually screwed them.

An Taisce and its ilk have a lot to answer for in terms of the mess this country finds itself in.

If we had had proper high-density development in the docks area and replacement of Liberty Hall with a higher-density development, developers wouldn't have sprawled all over the city. Instead, years of obstruction and objection have delayed the high-density development encouraging the stupid low-density development into neighbouring counties and ruining the prospect of sustainable public transport. The most short-sighted policies for an environmentally-friendly future I have ever seen. Yes, keep a small part of the inner city low-rise but if you have ever seen a European city like Valencia or Florence, you will realise that low-rise should only be kept to the really important architecturally valuable parts of the city - that means the Georgian squares and little else. Capel St, for example or up around Guinness and Thomas St are not architecturally interesting places - high-rise, high-density development should have been allowed.

Outside of Dublin there are other examples. If the gas had come ashore at Mayo in time, we would have had jobs and income tax and corporation tax to help with the budget deficit.

Sponge Bob

Godge wrote: »

low-rise should only be kept to the really important architecturally valuable parts of the city - that means the Georgian squares and little else. Capel St, for example or up around Guinness and Thomas St are not architecturally interesting places - high-rise, high-density development should have been allowed.

No intelligent densification of Dublin has ever been supported or proposed by An Taisce. ( Seán Dunnes Ballsbridge scheme was not intelligent, merely greedy and stupid)

Outside of Dublin there are other examples. If the gas had come ashore at Mayo in time, we would have had jobs and income tax and corporation tax to help with the budget deficit.

Ah now, don't go into the positive consequences of timely and cost effective delivery of infrastructure projects.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

An Taisce and its ilk have a lot to answer for in terms of the mess this country finds itself in.

If we had had proper high-density development in the docks area and replacement of Liberty Hall with a higher-density development, developers wouldn't have sprawled all over the city. Instead, years of obstruction and objection have delayed the high-density development encouraging the stupid low-density development into neighbouring counties and ruining the prospect of sustainable public transport. The most short-sighted policies for an environmentally-friendly future I have ever seen. Yes, keep a small part of the inner city low-rise but if you have ever seen a European city like Valencia or Florence, you will realise that low-rise should only be kept to the really important architecturally valuable parts of the city - that means the Georgian squares and little else. Capel St, for example or up around Guinness and Thomas St are not architecturally interesting places - high-rise, high-density development should have been allowed.

Outside of Dublin there are other examples. If the gas had come ashore at Mayo in time, we would have had jobs and income tax and corporation tax to help with the budget deficit.

Again a complete misrepresentation of An Taisce's position. An Taisce followed the recommendations of the DEGW study originally adopted by DCC in 2000 and the study allowed for highrise in clusters such as Heuston and Dockland. An Taisce did not appeal development in these locations, nor did it object to high-rise in suburban areas such as Blanchardstown.

Vanity highrise in Ireland and Northern Ireland have largely been economic failures - Elyssian Fields and reently the highest building in NI getting repossessed.

Liberty Hall is not residential and there is no shortage of empty office space in Dublin.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

No intelligent densification of Dublin has ever been supported or proposed by An Taisce. ( Seán Dunnes Ballsbridge scheme was not intelligent, merely greedy and stupid)

Now you are blatantly lying.

Reduce urban sprawl by creatively increasing population density areas
Promote affordable high density housing through housing associations and cooperatives

http://www.antaisce.ie/naturalenvironment/Sustainability/Howtobecomemoresustainable.aspx

An Taisce noted that urban renewal tax reliefs (introduced in the 1980s) increased the ratio of retail activities in urban centres. However, this was based on a flawed development model of replicating the out of town shopping centre in the urban centre area. This led to the insertion of large retail developments with multi-storey car parks into medieval walled areas cities like Waterford and Kilkenny.

The Retail Planning Guidelines have failed entirely to prevent urban sprawl retail. The city centres of Limerick and Waterford - and to a lesser degree, other urban centres – are now suffering serious functional decline, while the legacy of the Irish boom has made it an international worst case exhibitor of car-based and car-dependent, urban sprawl.

http://www.antaisce.ie/builtenvironment/Policies/RetailPlanningGuidelines.aspx

Also read the more complex analysis of planning policy contained here.
http://www.antaisce.ie/Portals/0/Reports/20120419StateoftheNation_PlanningSystem.pdf


Anyone would think you are slightly biased there Bob...;)

Sponge Bob

These are all after the fact links. Where is the evidence that An Taisce had a policy on densification in 2000 when it was obvious it was needed.

Where, in addition, is the evidence that An Taisce were generally (not blindly) supportive of Dublin Corpo when the Corpo moved to the view that Densification was a requisite.???

Reports from the post 2007 period simply don't cut the mustard. Horse bolted door sort of stuff.

maninasia

MadsL wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how corporation tax works.

How it works is that all profits are taxed at 12.5% or whatever the going rate is these days. However now Shell can write off this extra cost as a loss for years to come and pay EVEN less tax than the little that they had to contribute originally. Note, this is not Shell's fault but the fault of the structure of the oil/gas revenue sharing agreement signed way back when.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

These are all after the fact links. Where is the evidence that An Taisce had a policy on densification in 2000 when it was obvious it was needed.

An Taisce publically supported and endorsed the findings of the DEGW Study in 2000 specifically as it found a way to manage densification in appropriate areas. They also publically stated they would reverse a policy of objecting all high-rise to allow for high rise development at Heuston and Docklands.

Where, in addition, is the evidence that An Taisce were generally (not blindly) supportive of Dublin Corpo when the Corpo moved to the view that Densification was a requisite.???

An Taisce held the DEGW position after 2000 because elements within DCC were pushing for vanity high-rise to "punctuate" the city, there was no rational approach to densification - just a push to have high-rise "Managing Intensification and Change" gave a carte-blanche to any height within a transport circle of 1km of a public transport hub. That pretty much meant DCC gave carte-blanche to height all across the city-centre, in direct conflict with the Development Plan. Therefore An Taisce opposed that document whilst still holding the DEGW policy of not objecting height in Dockland and Heuston.

Reports from the post 2007 period simply don't cut the mustard. Horse bolted door sort of stuff.

An Taisce's position has been consistant since 2000. Michael Smith made that position public in the early 2000s - Here is such a statement on his blog from 2008. source

More than a decade ago An Taisce – a charity – announced that it would appeal all unplanned high-rise in Dublin City. From Georges Quay to Spencer Dock to Ballsbridge to Smithfield it has been mostly successful in these Bord Pleanala appeals. High-rise has, since 2000, been planned only for Docklands and around Heuston.

So for over ten years An Taisce has been appealing unplanned highrise ie: outside of the Development Plan which only indicated Heuston and Docklands. It is not An Taisce that has no policy on densification, but rather DCC that have had no real idea about how to manage height in the city.

Besides height = density is a myth. High buildings require large plazas aound them to avoid excessive massing and do not always deliver significant densification.

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/density-in-a-city-of-neighbourhoods-11-myths-part-1/

A higher building is not necessarily denser in terms of floor space than a lower one. A one- storey building can equal the area of an eight-storey building if they both have the same Floor Space Ratio – though their site coverage will be different. This means just reducing the number of floors of a tower may make no difference to its density.

We could deliver ample intensification by simple redevelopment of low standard social housing in the outlying areas just outside the canals, much of it low quality semi-detached, now aging badly. The is simply no need for highrise in the historic city centre other than to serve vanity and ego.

Scortho

MadsL wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how corporation tax works.

My understanding of the shell project was that they were able to write off the initial investment against their future tax liabilities to the state.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

An Taisce publically supported and endorsed the findings of the DEGW Study in 2000 specifically as it found a way to manage densification in appropriate areas.

So for over ten years An Taisce has been appealing unplanned highrise ie: outside of the Development Plan which only indicated Heuston and Docklands. .

But DEGW recommended 'High' Rise be allowed in more than just the Docklands and around Heuston, care to expand ????

[Jackass]

Unfortunately, this is what happens when relevant specialisation or qualifications are not included in the job brief.

Among a whole host of reform needed, the way in which planning is conducted in this country needs to be completely overhauled. Clearly there's zero structure to how planning is given, with no "actual planning" for impact, and after the ghost estates and one bedroom apartments out in the arse end of nowhere with the nearest shop a 20 minute drive down the motorway, it clearly isn't working.

Add it to the list I suppose. :rolleyes:

Are there parallels to be drawn with planning and the current abortion debate, that ABP is a sort of abortion mechanism to all of DCC's unplanned mishaps? Might be clutching at straws trying to bring that one into the debate. :pac:

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

But DEGW recommended 'High' Rise be allowed in more than just the Docklands and around Heuston, care to expand ????

The 2005 City Plan did not itself specify maximum building heights, it contained a provision at Par.15.6.0 which stated:

A study commissioned by Dublin City Council to examine the issue of Dublin¡¦s
building height (Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height, DEGW 2000) identified character areas and locations within the city that would allow for large-scale growth and innovation in building form. The potential siting of higher building or high intensity clusters within the city will be planned using the principles and criteria enunciated in the study.

and

It is the policy of Dublin City Council to continue to protect the skyline of the inner city while having due regard to the criteria regarding building heights set out in the above DEGW study.

The DEGW study distinguished between individual high buildings and high intensity clusters. With regard to high rise buildings it stated at Par.5.3:

“In Dublin the issue of form and composition can be discussed in terms of the high rise building vs. the high cluster or core. The fundamental difference between the two being: High rise buildings fulfil primarily an image or landmark function in townscape terms and do not have a significant impact in terms of increasing density (i.e. the amount of accommodation or activity). On the contrary a composite arrangement in the form of a cluster or core has the potential to significantly add to the density levels of a location and impacts considerably on the city-wide context.”

In essence DEGW indicated gateway highrise (Heuston and Docklands) and then intensification at transport hubs.

This is what was indicated as "planned highrise" and the basis both of DCC's Development Plan and An Taisce's policy.

[Jackass] wrote: »

Are there parallels to be drawn with planning and the current abortion debate, that ABP is a sort of abortion mechanism to all of DCC's unplanned mishaps? Might be clutching at straws trying to bring that one into the debate. :pac:

I see what you did there, and sadly there is a strong element of truth. At one point ABP ended up doing consultations with Chartered Land to try and fix some of the damage DCC did by insisting on the skislope park at O"Connell St/Moore St. ABP should not be doing planning consultations, but since DCC ballsed it up so badly obviously didnt trust them with it.

AlekSmart

Interesting thread.....but how does one explain the Planning input into Dundrum TOWN Centre...?

MadsL

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting thread.....but how does one explain the Planning input into Dundrum TOWN Centre...?

The mysteries of DLRC passeth all understanding.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

T
In essence DEGW indicated gateway highrise (Heuston and Docklands) and then intensification at transport hubs.

They did in indeed, (clarification DEGW prepared 2 reports and we are talking about the original 2000 one not the 2008 one.)

But you left out the transport hubs when you posted yesterday and only mentioned Docklands and Heuston. I suspect they said "stations" not "transport hubs" in 2000 FTW.

The countrys biggest bus station is right beside Liberty Hall and Connolly the second largest train station ain't far and nor is the Luas.

So the Corporation decision on Liberty Hall ( which is still not infrastructure) is not entirely inconsistent with the DEGW recommendations is it and the corporation cannot be accused of ignoring the DEGW report as a consequence....except by the tedious An Taisce of course.

An Taisce had no policy of their own prior to the DEGW report either, other than "Cribbing and Moaning" as the man said.

If we could find a way to knock that existing eyesore and replace it with a hole in the ground until 2030 I'd be perfectly happy.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They did in indeed, (clarification DEGW prepared 2 reports and we are talking about the original 2000 one not the 2008 one.)

But you left out the transport hubs when you posted yesterday and only mentioned Docklands and Heuston. I suspect they said "stations" not "transport hubs" in 2000 FTW.

The countrys biggest bus station is right beside Liberty Hall and Connolly the second largest train station ain't far and nor is the Luas.

So the Corporation decision on Liberty Hall ( which is still not infrastructure) is not entirely inconsistent with the DEGW recommendations is it and the corporation cannot be accused of ignoring the DEGW report as a consequence....except by the tedious An Taisce of course.

An Taisce had no policy of their own prior to the DEGW report either, other than "Cribbing and Moaning" as the man said.

If we could find a way to knock that existing eyesore and replace it with a hole in the ground until 2030 I'd be perfectly happy.

Remind me what you are criticising An Taisce for again? Not having a height policy prior to 2008 2000? Remind me to not play footie when you are ref, I'd have to be fit to keep up with those goalposts.

Now that we have roundly discussed An Taisce's performance 2000-2012, how about we hear your opinion of DCC's planning performance in the same period?

I'll also remind you that cribbing and moaning saved the country an extra half billion in failed developments that had been granted permission by DCC and we overruled (sensibly) by ABP?

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

But you left out the transport hubs when you posted yesterday and only mentioned Docklands and Heuston.

So did the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011.