Core Refusal Reason
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the retention of the licensed premises (public house) would not erode the cultural and artistic facilities of the Temple Bar area or lead to an over-concentration of such uses, which is contrary to the specific development objectives for the Temple Bar mixed-use cultural quarter.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the change of use to a licensed premises would not erode or directly negatively impact the cultural and artistic facilities of the Temple Bar area, as required by Objectives CUO16 and CUO18.
- The scale and format of the development is considered to constitute a 'superpub', which contributes to an undesirable concentration of similar uses that undermines the mixed-use cultural, residential, and social functions of the locality.
- While the Inspector noted that internal alterations to the Protected Structure were largely modern and reversible, the fundamental conflict with the Temple Bar development policy framework necessitates a refusal of permission.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Z5 (City Centre)Policy CCUV12Policy CCUV30Policy CCUV32Policy CCUV35Policy BHA2Policy BHA4Policy BHA7Policy BHA9Section 11.5.1Section 11.5.2Policy CU10Objective CUO16Objective CUO17Objective CUO18Section 15.14.7.2Section 15.14.12Section 15.17.5
Decision Document Summary
The proposal seeks retention permission for the change of use of the ground floor of Dollard House, a Protected Structure in Temple Bar, from a previously permitted retail/deli use to a 761sqm licensed premises with food service (currently trading as 'The Giddy Dolphin'). The site is located within the Liffey Quays Red Hatch Conservation Area and is zoned 'Z5' (City Centre). While a public house is a permissible use under Z5, the Inspector argued that specific Temple Bar policies (CUO16 & CUO18)...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.
PDF Document Missing
The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.
Search for case on ABP