Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Grafton Street, Dublin Alamy Stock Photo

Planning permission refused for three separate hotels in Dublin City

An Bord Pleanála took issue with things like a lack of architectural character and insufficient public facilties.

PLANNERS HAVE TURNED down planning permission for the third hotel proposal in the capital in recent weeks.

An Bord Pleanála refused planning permission for Derek Murtagh’s eight-storey, 81-bedroom hotel for Kevin Street Lower and Liberty Lane, Portobello, Dublin 8.

A report prepared for the applicant by Head of Hotels & Leisure at Savills Tom Barrett stated that the planned hotel “would be a good addition to this city centre area”.

The refusal follows two hotel proposals by Eamon Waters’s Sretaw Hotel Group failing to get lift off this month.

In one decision, the appeals board refused planning permission for a new eight-storey, 61-bedroom hotel close to St Stephen’s Green. The site would be known as Textile House on Johnson’s Place and Clarendon Market, opposite the Grafton Hotel in Dublin.

In a second blow to the Sretaw Hotel Group, Dublin City Council planners refused planning permission to Mr Waters’s Peachbeach UC for a 113-bedroom hotel on Baggot Street Lower, arguing that the scheme would cause serious injury to the special architectural character of the Georgian area.

In relation to the Murtagh scheme, the board refused planning permission as it concluded the hotel’s excessive scale, massing and architectural design would be visually overbearing with an abrupt transition within the historic terrace which would detract from the prevailing scale and architectural character of the traditional streetscape.

The appeals board ruled that the proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site and would negatively impact the setting of the Protected Structure.

The appeals board also concluded that notwithstanding the revised scheme of reduced scale, it was not satisfied that the proposed development would not seriously injure the residential amenities of the opposing properties on Liberty Lane by reason of overbearance, overlooking, potential noise disturbance and access to daylight and sunlight.

In the third ground for refusal, the Board was not satisfied that the proposed development would provide an adequate level of public facilities such as a café, restaurant and bar that could generate activity at street level throughout the day and night.

The board also stated that it was not satisfied that the operational management was feasible in the absence of the provision of a designated loading bay off road.

Close
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds