It's all over for Spencer Dock, or at least for the massive development planned by the Treasury Holdings-led consortium, following An Bord Pleanala's decision to grant planning permission only for the national conference centre element of the scheme.
From the outset of this long-running controversy, the developers argued that they needed to secure approval for six million square feet of ancillary space - offices, hotels, apartments, shops and car-parking - in order to fund the loss-making conference centre.
Dublin Corporation bent over backwards to facilitate them by sanctioning the conference centre and 4.6 million square feet in a Solomon's judgment last August. But the developers insisted that this was not enough and gambled on an appeal to An Bord Pleanala.
It is clear from the board's decision that they have lost. The £124 million conference centre, designed by the US-based Irish architect, Mr Kevin Roche, cannot and will not be built, unless the Government steps in and offers to pay for it, which seems unlikely.
By refusing permission for the massive development stacked up beside and behind the centre, An Bord Pleanala's decision has vindicated the strong objections made by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, An Taisce, Mr Dermot Desmond and others.
Like them, the board considered that the scale, bulk, mass and campus-style layout of the buildings proposed by Mr Roche's master plan would constitute an inappropriate urban form of development for Dublin. In plain terms, as the objectors argued, it would be the wrong way to go.
The board's decision - in particular, its reference to a mass of high buildings at Spencer Dock obtruding on views from the "Georgian Mile" along Fitz william Street - has obvious implications for the skyline strategy now being devised by Dublin Corporation. It will have to take more careful account of long-distance views.
But the most immediate consequence of this very clear and commendable ruling relates to Spencer Dock itself and the future of this pivotally-located 51-acre site, right in the heart of docklands. The fact that it is publicly-owned, through CIE, means that it must acquire a publicly-owned master plan rather than one driven purely by profit.
Indeed, this was one of the central arguments made by the objectors at a three-week oral hearing last March. The only problem is that the precise terms of the deal between CIE and its partners, Treasury Holdings and Mr Harry Crosbie, the docklands entrepreneur, have never been disclosed. Is the State transport company a free agent or locked in for ever, as some sources suggest?
The board's decision is also a slap in the face for CIE, because the very first reason cited for refusing permission for everything other than the conference centre is that it would all be premature pending final determination of the alignment of a new cross-river rail link downstream of the existing Loop Line.
A requirement of the planning permission granted for the conference centre - that it must be shifted nine metres further east to protect the amenity of the Royal Canal - also presents a problem for CIE. It would mean that the huge rail freight gantry on the site would have to be dismantled, calling into question the continued use of the site as a marshalling yard.
But even without considering this admittedly short- to medium-term problem, the permission is effectively useless to the development consortium. Certainly, their putative financial backers, GE Capital, will not be prepared to advance any money now that they have no idea of the scale of ancillary development likely to be approved on the site.
One way or another, it is back to the drawing boards. Three years and some £12 million worth of consultants' time have been wasted on a futile effort to establish an excessively large development at Spencer Dock.
Bord Failte's 10-year-old objective to provide a national conference centre is nowhere near fruition, even after three separate tender competitions. Jinxed or not, the only way this project can be rescued and the future of Spencer Dock secured is by drafting a new master plan for the site in a way that stands some chance of gaining a municipal consensus.