Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PLANNING PERMISSION FOR an apartment block in north Dublin has been overturned after a local pub objected about the potential impact the development would have on its business.
Earlier this year, Dublin City Council granted roofing contractor P Rooney Roofing permission to build a two-storey development at Cross Guns Bridge in Phibsborough.
The company had proposed to demolish two derelict houses and a garage at the site and to construct a mixed-use development containing nine apartments, a retail unit and a basement car park.
It intended to provide pedestrian and vehicular access to the apartments via Phibsborough Road and a rear lane called McGuinness’ Lane.
The laneway is situated between a snooker hall on Royal Canal Bank, a road adjacent to the Royal Canal, and back of the Bald Eagle pub on Phibsborough Road.
The snooker hall and pub use the laneway for storing rubbish and the delivery of kegs, and while both businesses have access to it, P Rooney Roofing contended that it had right of way to use it.
The local authority granted permission for the development in March, despite receiving an objection on behalf of the Bald Eagle which said that permission for a similar development had previously been refused by the council.
A number of locals also objected to the development, telling Dublin City Council that its height was excessive, that it would negatively impact wildlife, that it was out of character with the area and that it would overshadow and overlook other buildings.
Exclusive access to laneway
The derelict buildings at the site were subsequently demolished, but Saltcross Limited – the parent company of the Bald Eagle – appealed the council’s decision to An Bord Pleanála in April and no further development of the site has taken place since.
In a letter to the authority on behalf of Saltcross, architect Giuliano Davenport told the authority that no agreement had been reached between the developer and owners of the pub or snooker hall regarding to the use of the McGuinness’ Lane.
He said that the laneway was exclusively used by the Bald Eagle and the snooker hall, and that it would not be acceptable for P Rooney Roofing to use it as an entrance to the proposed apartment block.
Concerns were also raised over the potential impact that the pub’s outdoor seating area would have on residents when the development was complete.
Davenport argued that the existence of the pub would inevitably lead to noise complaints from future residents of the apartments, particularly as some of its windows faced out onto the McGuinness’ Lane and the pub’s smoking area.
He said that this would make the development substandard and previously told Dublin City Council that noise complaints would potentially prejudice the pub’s ability to apply for or renew its licence for later opening hours.
Amenities inadequately protected
In her report, planning inspector Sarah Lynch said that if a development had the potential for noise disturbance, it should include measures to reduce noise levels.
However, she noted that no such measures were submitted by the developer as part of its plans, saying this would be necessary to ensure that insulation was provided to ensure both the amenities of future residents and the economic viability of the Bald Eagle.
She added that P Rooney Roofing had failed to demonstrate that these amenities were inadequately protected, and found the development was contrary to the provisions of Dublin City Council’s Development Plan.
Meanwhile, Lynch also said that the existence of windows above McGuinness’ Lane, which is currently used for ventilation and storing rubbish, would result in a “significantly substandard form of development”.
She said the use of the laneway was a legal matter and not one that the authority could determine, but found a number of planning issues relating to its location.
Lynch noted that a proposed ground floor bedroom window faced directly onto the laneway, two metres from the snooker hall.
She said that this gave minimum potential for daylight to enter the room, and that the window would also open directly onto the McGuinness’ Lane where rubbish was stored.
She also said that the developer had not adequately shown that vehicles could access the lane leading to the underground car park without creating a traffic hazard on the adjoining Royal Canal Bank, a narrow road running parallel to the canal.
Citing these reasons, she overturned the council’s decision and refused permission for the construction of the development.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How can more people living near a pub be bad for business?
@eoin carroll: my thoughts exactly
The Bernard Shaw is being forced to close much of its operations due to property developers in the area voicing concerns of noise complaints. Power to the pub I say!
@eoin carroll: they are getting ahead of the future residents who will then complain about the pub being too close.
@Damien Fegan: genuine question – were the objections from developers? I thought they were from nearby residents.
Do the developers fear the noise is bringing down their potential sale value?
@eoin carroll: if new apartments were allowed they would, as a result of tgeir proximity to the pub, make complaints about mouse and smell etc etc.
Bsld eagl is protecting themselves against this.
Obvious
@Aidan Conway: there is very little that is obvious about mouse and bsld eagle I’m afraid.
@eoin carroll: would you want to live in an apartment were you had to enter it by walking down a lane were the pubs rubbish bins are then have to open your window out onto this same lane could you imagine the smell and flies, then as the outdoor seating area is also just outside near apartment you’d have joy of everyone else smoking laughing drinking outside.. Who the hell thought this was a good idea, this must have been a brown envelope job
Yet again we have developers leading us on the road to ruin
@sVRCsaSg: What nearby residents?
The GBS is clearly ‘in the way’ of what developers want to do with that block & it will be a death of a hundred red tape cuts until its gone.
@eoin carroll: They explain it in the article
I know the area well as I lived there. There was a bicycle repair shop on the corner there a long time ago. I don’t see an issue with it. 2 storeys isn’t out of place at all considering there’s not a bungalow in sight lol. Usual 1-2 people objecting about f all as usual.
@Ciaran Farrelly: the picture portrays a development of more than 2 storeys
@Vocal Outrage: true but the article states it’s a two-storey development.
@Ciaran Farrelly: The old guy who owned the shop fixed my bicycle in 1979, building was left derelict after the shop closed, maybe since the mid-80s.
@Ciaran Farrelly: it says two stories but the image is of five stories. I very much doubt that nine apartments plus a retail unit would fit in such a small site if it was just two stories.
@David Jordan: Probably retired on the profit he got from fixing that bike.
@Ciaran Farrelly: used to be a decent pub there too. the Cross Guns, area looks awful now, no character. Great snooker club though, played there 50 yrs ago
There is enough Apartments and Houses, we don’t need to build more, In 2018 There was 200,000 empty homes in Ireland – and 8,500 homeless, fix the problem before building more……
@SEO DUBLIN: but are these homes within commuting distance from the major employment hubs of the country?
@SEO DUBLIN: Yeah and most of those homes are not in Dublin City where all the employment is, so they might as well be on Mars for all they’re worth.
I love this ‘what about the homeless?!’ shite that people like you wheel out as a stick to beat down anything they don’t agree with. As if you’ve ever done anything to combat homeless in your life.
Local residents objected to a 2 story building saying it is too high… Next to a 2 story building
@Karl Charlie: objection of a 5 story next to a 2 story building with shared access to a lane used for deliveries, bins and potential entrance to the finished complex
@Karl Lee: where did you read 5 story? Because it clearly says planning permission was granted in march to build a TWO STORY building, with access to a lane NOT owned by the pub or snooker Hall, therefore the pub has no right to use this laneway for bins and it rightly should be used as access to the proposed building, its just more of this not in my back yard bull%#&£
@Karl Charlie: the image shows five stories not two so reckon it might have been a typo. It’s a small site, nine apartments plus a retail until wouldn’t fit in two stories
@Karl Charlie: WAS granted for a two story, now they want a five story as you can see by the drawing
agreed! it’s nonsense to be honest, how much new buildings you can squeeze in Dublin? I drive very often there and was wondering how the hell someone is planning to build something? leave City centre and it’s beauty as it is! there is plenty of land around.
look at this issue from wider perspective, for example the same issue with Clontarf and 65000 new homes….we all know how bad traffic on our streets is every day, now imagine how heavy impact 65000 new homes would have in Clontarf area? where are authorities to stop this kind of idiotic plans? build more but not in Dublin! I am ok with new office builds but not residential.
@Born to be wild!: there are a few undeveloped areas but when these apartments are built they often knock down a one or two story building. So they’re not squeezing another building in just putting a taller one in where a smaller one previously existed.
It’s all very well and good to try freeze Dublin the way it is but people don’t have anywhere to live. People are squeezing into small rooms and apartments together at the expense of building. They’re also squeezing onto crammed public transport or onto congested roads as they commute from increasingly ridiculous distances because people want Dublin to remain full of quaint bungalows and semi-d housing.
This country needs more new buildings.
@Born to be wild!: so you want to build more offices in Dublin…. But not residential? And at the same time you want more people to live further outside Dublin while not congesting the roads?
The formula doesn’t add up.
@sVRCsaSg: true this country need way more new houses/apartments but I think we need to find balance where and how to build. We can’t make our streets wider for example, in my area there is a brand new apt development for probably 5000 new residents but our local road/roundabouts will stay the same. My point is that every morning or afternoon drive is a nightmare! and there is no new schools or hospitals….there is simply no infrastructure to provide necessary services, in results people would have to drive longer distances with their kids to reach school or shop, not to mention about hospital if you’re in emergency situation .
There is no infrastructure to build more in this City
Few days ago thejournal wrote about sewage leaking into Liffey
https://www.thejournal.ie/liffey-swim-water-samples-4751378-Aug2019/
or Dublin Bay:
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-ringsend-wastewater-treatment-spillage-4706410-Jul2019/
and that city area is simply over populated. I am not sure 65 000 new houses in Clontarf would help with this issue? very shortly Dublin Bay will be one big sewage .
@Born to be wild!: Maybe Dubs shouldn’t have opposed decentralisation so vehemently when FF were implementing it before it got into the state its in. Bit late to try and change the course now.
@Born to be wild!: yes but you want offices built in Dublin so you want the jobs to remain in Dublin but people to live further away. Unless you’re for compulsory land purchases so we can widen roads and provide bus corridors and train lines I don’t see how your suggestions are going to solve the issues.
There was an article here the other day about the bus corridors and people were complaining at the loss of old trees. As a country we need to accept this problem and realise that there’s no perfect solution. Yet all we seem to be doing is saying no to everything.
@Born to be wild!:
isnt cross guns the site of a proposed major metro heavy rail and dart interchange station?
@Born to be wild!: I work in the IFSC and travel about 90 minutes to get there. Occasionally i get a taxi and get stuck on Macken street where i see a single storey garage, single storey gym and a couple of two ups two downs. Now for some joined up thinking. Build an 8 storey block, rent it, but only to people working in the ifsc. Its not all bankers who work there, its regular people like me too. You could house 500 people in that spot all who could walk to work. 500 less on the luas. Less bikes, less cars. But we don’t do joined up thinking in this country.
@denartha: and if the worker changed jobs should they then be evicted?
@Born to be wild!: Yeah and let’s have two hour commutes within the city, and obscene house prices too. Hurrah for the contented class – masters of spatial planning.
You’re some dope.
@Born to be wild!: so you are ok with business setting up but the people working in these businesses can feck off down the country to live thus creating more traffic problems. Nice one !!!
A win win for the pub and getting rid of a lane that was used as a rubbish dump, What is wrong with some people? Dont they know a good thing when they see it? Seems not.
@Clint Sofie: read the article, the pub lodged its appeal as it knew once the apartments were build the pub would be subject to noise complaints and impact of license applications. Therefore the development would hamper the pubs business
@Clint Sofie: I think the lane is being used by the pub to store rubbish until collection.
@Vocal Outrage: Lookit Mr outrage, why dont ya go somewhere else and play yer game of draughts and let the people without a home get somewhere to live
@Clint Sofie: even if that place to live is substandard? It’s not only because of the pub the development was rejected; there’s nothing to prove that cars could even enter the carpark without causing a hazard and a bedroom facing the entrance to the snooker hall just a couple of meters away is hardly ideal either. Are you familiar with the site? It seems to me the developer is trying to cram too much into such a small area.
That lane is a nightmare as it is for cars getting out on to the Phibsborough road imagine more traffic.
There is nothing wrong with building homes, but why are they trying to shoehorn in the biggest, out of place buildings they can and then be surprised that people give out about them, FYI, that apartment block was supposed to have underground parking that close to the canal? Can anyone honestly tell me why they couldn’t simply have designed apartments that actually fitted in with the area they are been built in?
@Trevor Donoghue: because they’re trying to maximize profits.
The two apartment blocks either side of it have underground parking next to the canal. I should know, I lived there.
Phibsboro is an ideal location for high density buildings. For some reason it has a lot of derelict buildings.
I haven’t been up that side in a while , maybe it still there. It mad all the changes and the lats / trellis where still there on till recently.
https://brandnewretro.ie/2012/10/09/hands-off-dublin-1976-deirdre-kelly-with-pat-langan/
@Life is short enjoy it: great photos, thanks for sharing
It should be built without car parking spaces. It’s only five minutes walk from the Cabra Luas stop, and it’s 100 meters from where the new Metro and rail interchange is going to be. That would sort out most of the problems relating to the laneway at the rear of the proposed development. A problem is, I think, that the council insists on car parking spaces being built for every apartment.
Noise insulation would deal with the noise complaints.
Seems a reversal of the natural objection order alright!
Forgot the brown envelopes lads
The Bald Vulture
It was excessive in height. At 2 storeys?!?!?!?!
We employ judges to judge. Why do all our judges pander to the victim. You slipped in Tesco, here’s 30k. Two storeys blocks your view of the ocean, planning denied. Meanwhile the rest of us who work deal with lack of suitable accommodation, spiralling out of control rents and increased insurance.
How on earth can a pub owner who’s sole business is to top up piss heads with more booze take priority to something that could help get even one family a chance to get off the street ??
Just address the issues raised in the rejection and reapply?
And this masquerades as news…
An Bord Pleanala seem to be entirely unaccepuntabke to the public, how is their operation consistent with a democratic society? The democratically elected county councillors should have the final word on whether a development goes ahead, not a group of unelected bureaucrats.
@Patrick FitzGerald: that should of course have said “unaccountable”, and is exactly why I almost never comment on articles from my phone
have your say