4373/23
PROTECTED STRUCTURE: RETENTION PERMISSION: Osteria Lucio, The Malting Tower, Grand Canal Quay, Clanwilliam Quay, Clanwilliam Terrace, Dublin 2. The property fronts onto Clanwilliam Terrace to the west and is south of Grand Canal Quay Railway Bridge which is a protected structure (RPS Ref. 883/3276). The development consists of the following temporary retention (for 3 years) of outdoor seating area structure (c. 23.2sq.m) comprising aluminium and glass enclosure with retractable roof (c. 2.9 metres height, c 1.74 metres width and c. 11.1 metres length) permitted under DCC reg. ref. 3447/19 ABP reg. ref. 305391-19 , retention (for 3 years) of exterior signage. A small area of the site falls within the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme area, however the majority of the site is outside the DSZ Planning Scheme area. The specific development the subject of this retention application is located outside the SDZ Planning Scheme area.
Core Refusal Reason
The development was refused due to its adverse visual impact on a Conservation Area and adjacent Protected Structure, and because it significantly reduces the effective width of the public footpath, creating a pedestrian hazard and obstruction.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The outdoor dining structure is an unsympathetic and visually dominant addition that detracts from the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent protected rail bridge.
- The reduction of the public footpath to a width of 0.98m constitutes a physical obstruction that endangers public safety by forcing pedestrians into potential conflict with cycle traffic.
- Granting retention would set an undesirable precedent for similar semi-permanent structures that negatively impact the public realm and historic streetscapes.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The applicant, Osteria Lucio, sought a three-year temporary retention permission for an existing outdoor seating enclosure (23.2m²) at the Malting Tower, Clanwilliam Terrace. The site is located within a Conservation Area and is adjacent to a Protected Structure (a railway bridge). While the applicant argued that the structure provided vibrancy and noted a previous temporary grant by the Board, the Inspector found the current structure's design and materials to be excessively dominant and injuri...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