Johnny Ronan’s real estate firm, RGRE, is challenging the outright denial of its proposed 17-storey multi-use project for Dublin docklands by Dublin City Council. The group has filed an appeal with An Bord Pleanála following the council’s refusal last month. Mr Ronan is petitioning for approval to revamp the present European headquarters of global banking titan, Citigroup, at 1 North Wall Quay.
The idea requires tearing down Citigroup’s existing six-storey office building, and constructing four new buildings in its lieu, varying in height from nine to 17 stories. As a component of the appeal, Mr Ronan’s applicant corporation, NWQ Devco Limited, is petitioning for An Bord Pleanála to conduct an oral hearing about the case.
John Spain & Associates, RGRE’s planning advisors, believe that an oral hearing would aid in achieving a thorough understanding of the project within the pertinent planning context, and the potential implications and advantages of the proposal.
The proposal envisages the 16th floor being used as an interactive gallery hosting a permanent exhibition known as the ‘Liffey Experience’, which they believe would significantly benefit the entire city. The appeal stipulates that the prospective Liffey Experience space could provide unrivalled city views and might become one of the city’s prime visitor centres and tourist attractions.
Due to the complexities inherent in the construction process and the current supply chain disruptions in the construction industry, the applicants are requesting a 10-year planning approval. An extensive range of documents were submitted as part of the appeal, including a three-page legal argument by Arthur Cox LLP.
Arthur Cox LLP’s submission indicated that the application met the exceptional circumstances guidelines that may allow for planning approval for a landmark building. The legal firm criticised the city council for failing to engage in any analysis or consideration of the exceptional circumstance, and whether these criteria had been satisfied by the proposed development. The letter further argued that any failure by the appeals board to consider the exceptional circumstance test “would constitute neglecting to consider a relevant issue within the decision-making context”. Henry J Lyons, the architects of the project, presented an argument that the submitted scheme is suitable for the site’s context.
According to the submission by Lyons, if the appeals board were to share the same issues highlighted by the city council, alterations could be carried out with regards to the height and massing of the building. This would pertain to the effects of sunlight and daylight, as well as the potential overpowering impact on surrounding properties. The architects further affirm that such adjustments to the design could lead to a decrease in the height and size of the building on the east side of the proposed site, thereby creating a beneficial impact.