Planning board gives green light to McKillen hotel in Dublin suburb
An Bord Pleanála has given the go-ahead to Paddy McKillen Jr's plans for a boutique hotel, complete with a roof-top restaurant, in the upmarket Dublin suburb of Ranelagh.
In giving the plan the green light, the appeals board chose to dismiss its own inspector's recommendation to refuse planning permission for the contentious plan.
Earlier this year, seven separate appeals were lodged by local residents with An Bord Pleanála against Dublin City Council's decision to give the five-floor 41-bedroom hotel scheme the go-ahead.
The planned development - proposed for 117-119 Ranelagh - will also contain a 50-seat arthouse cinema in its basement.
One appellant, Kenny Worn, stated in a submission that Ranelagh already has five pubs, 18 restaurants and six takeaways. "We don't need more bars, restaurants or hotels. We need a car park," he said.
Mr McKillen will add the hotel to his Press Up Entertainment Group portfolio that includes the Everleigh Garden nightclub, the Dean Hotel and the Workman's Club in Temple Bar.
The Press Up Entertainment Group operates 26 hospitality businesses in Dublin, including a contract at the Clarence Hotel which is owned by Paddy McKillen Sr with U2 stars, Bono and The Edge.
A spokeswoman for the Press Up Entertainment Group said yesterday: "The Ranelagh hotel will take from 18 months to two years for completion.
"It will create construction jobs during the build, and will also create 80 full and part-time jobs on opening.
"These roles will add to the 1000-plus employment opportunities that Press Up Entertainment Group already provide within the hospitality industry," she added.
"In addition to the economic benefits of addition employment in the area, the hotel will also provide much needed meeting and event spaces, an arthouse cinema and a rooftop restaurant, all of which will complement the fabulous selection of restaurants in the Ranelagh neighbourhood."
In the case, the board's inspector came down on the side of the residents opposed to the plan.
He recommended that planning be refused after concluding that the proposed development represents the overdevelopment and over-intensification of use on the site.
The inspector also said that the proposed development would adversely impact on the adjacent residential amenities by reason of noise generated.
However, the board decided not to accept the inspector's recommendation, the proposal through its design and layout, would not seriously injure the residential amenities of the adjoining properties and would not constitute overdevelopment.
The appeals board stated that the proposal would contribute to the vitality and viability of the area, would not set an undesirable precedent, would not constitute a traffic hazard and would be in accordance with proper planning.