Rugby fans await resolution of Thomond park impasse
A decision by UL Bohemians rugby club to lodge an objection with An Bord Pleanála has sparked a backlash among Limerick rugby followers.
Pressure is now mounting on the club to withdraw its objection.
One source said: “I would be very surprised if this is not sorted before this week is out.”
UL Bohemians president Joe Sheehan was confident at the end of last week the objection would be withdrawn. Asked at the weekend if any progress had been made, Mr Sheehan said he had no further comment to make on the matter. The club plays its home fixtures at Thomond Park and the club pavilion is located in the stand.
In their objection, the club claims the new development does not adequately cater for the needs of their players and there would be restricted access to the grounds. The club also claims the project does not comply with the city development plan.
One source said: “This is a public relations mess for UL Bohs. They have made more out of Thomond Park than any other club through the drinks licence on big match occasions. I know people who contribute to the club draw and will pull out if they don’t sort this out quickly.”
The Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) had hoped to hand the grounds over to the developers within the next few weeks, but the project cannot proceed while the UL Bohs objections stands. The IRFU have lodged an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, but this relates to the development levy which Limerick City Council wants to impose.
The council is seeking €1.72m, based on a fixed charge of €100 charge per square meter of area to be developed.
A council spokesman said the levy applied to all developments in the city.
The IRFU say the facility should be exempt from a development levy as it involves a sports facility.
If UL Bohs do not withdraw their objection, the development of the new stadium, which will accommodate 29,000, could be held up for at least six months.
A spokesperson for An Bord Pleanála said 18 weeks was the target for a decision to be taken but that timeframe was not always possible to achieve, due to the volume of appeals.



