Lansdowne Hotel refused permission for exterior ‘horsebox’ bar

Dublin City Council has refused a two-year planning permission to a Dublin 4 hotel to retain a “horsebox” bar structure on its grounds at the front of the hotel.

In its decision, the council has refused planning permission to the Lansdowne Hotel on 27-29 Pembroke Road, Ballsbridge, to retain the Horsebox bar structure after concluding that the development “would add to the visual clutter and have a negative impact on the protected structure”.

An architect acting for hotel owner Hillquarter Investments Ltd – Albert Noonan of Noonan Moran Architecture – told the council that “outdoor dining, drinking and socialising has become an important part of life in Ireland and its benefits are widely acknowledged”.

He said that “there is recognised need for appropriately designed outdoor spaces where people can meet within the city”.

Can US modular home specialist deliver for Ireland?

---

Meme stock mania is unlikely to last

---

It’s raining metaphors at Manchester United amid soggy aftermath of underinvestment

---

Aviva Insurance Ireland CEO: ‘There is still a huge incentive for solicitors to push for litigation’

---

He added: “The Lansdowne Hotel has been providing such a space for many years but on a more seasonal basis.”

Will the protocol deal bring prosperity to Northern Ireland?

Listen | 44:30

Mr Noonan stated that an application for a more permanent structure is currently before An Bord Pleanála and the current application is to regularise the existing arrangement for two years.

However, the council planning report which recommended refusal stated that while the horsebox structure is moveable and of relatively small size, it is the inclusion of the structure in an already cluttered area to the front of the protected structures which is considered inappropriate for such a setting.

The report points out that “at present there is no permission for the seating areas, planters or any of the signage surrounding the front of this site”.

It states that while this is “a working hotel, and outdoor dining/bar areas may be considered a commercially integral element to the hotel, the hotel itself consists of two protected structures and is located within a residential conservation area”.

The report states that “any development should be cognisant of this and any application for the use of the front of the protected structure should consider the front garden as a whole. The continued piecemeal development to the front of the hotel is leading to a visually cluttered curtilage”.

Recommending refusal, the planner stated that the extension of the hotel use to the front of the property, which is in close proximity to neighbouring residential property, would due to noise and disturbance
“neither protect nor improve the amenities of this residential conservation area”.