4474/22
PROTECTED STRUCTURE: The development will consist for the following tourist accommodation at "Porterhouse" 16-17 Parliament Street, Dublin 2, (on the corner of Essex Street East), and using existing interconnection with 18 Parliament Street, (Protected Structure) to provide fire escape only via its existing non-original stairs: (a) change of use of the 2nd floor from public house storage to 4 no. bedrooms, with internal alterations; (b) the insertion of a third floor in the present 2nd floor double height space to provide 4 bedrooms and circulation; (c) the addition of a fourth floor (103 sqm) to provide 3 no. bedrooms, 2 no. terraces and circulation; (d) extension of 2 no stairwells and 1 no. lift-shaft upwards to 5th floor level and the provision of a roof terrace (65sqm) with glass balustrade.
Core Reason for the Refused Part
The proposed vertical extension and raising of the cupola would detrimentally impact the architectural symmetry of the streetscape, the character of the Protected Structure, and significant vistas within the conservation area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The addition of a fourth floor and the raising of the cupola would dramatically and detrimentally alter the symmetry of the regular parapet heights and the established streetscape along Parliament Street.
- The proposed height increases would result in an adverse visual impact on the conservation area and intrude upon significant vistas toward City Hall and the River Liffey.
- The development would set an undesirable precedent for similar vertical expansions and directly contravenes specific heritage and conservation policies of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involved the development of tourist accommodation at 16-17 Parliament Street, Dublin 2, a prominent corner site and Protected Structure. While internal modifications to the lower floors were granted, the planning authority issued a split decision, refusing the vertical elements of the scheme including a new fourth floor, roof terrace, and the raising of the existing cupola. The refusal was primarily based on the negative impact these additions would have on the architectural integri...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.