Council’s shopping policy for George’s Street ‘confusing’

Bizarre inconsistencies have arisen over the interpretation of Dublin City Council’s policy to “uphold the primacy of retail” in South Great George’s Street, leaving potential investors in a quandary. The inconsistencies have been highlighted by two recent decisions by An Bord Pleanála – granting permission for a pub to be extended into No 25, formerly the Oriental Emporium, while refusing approval for a restaurant next door, in No 24.

In both cases, the planning inspectors referred to the council’s policy to “protect the primary retail function” of category 2 shopping streets, such as South Great George’s Street, “with an emphasis on higher order comparison retail and a rich mix of uses”.

When Mercroft Taverns – controlled by Jay Bourke and John Reynolds – sought permission to extend the Market Bar in Fade Street into No 25, the council refused on the basis that additional restaurants, bars or cafes would “take away from the retail character”. The council planner who dealt with the case feared that the Market Bar would be turned into a “superpub” if permission was granted to extend it into all four floors of No 25 South Great George’s Street – with Hogan’s pub and the “No Name” bar located nearby.

“Taking the above into account, it is considered that the proposal would . . . lead to an over-concentration of public house use to the detriment of other uses an the overall character of the category 2 shopping street,” the planner said, recommending a refusal.

Mercroft appealed to An Bord Pleanála, which took a different view. Noting that there was to be a “private members arts club” on the upper floors, it commended the proposal as a “co-ordinated and integrated development” for a protected structure.

Planning inspector Patricia Young concluded that there was “no basis” for the council’s view that “the development of a small public house at ground and basement levels with overhead arts-related meeting rooms would result in the development of a superpub”.

Although shop units on both sides were vacant (and still are), she said retail developments in the area were “not adversely affected” by the fact that it had become “the most competitive and highest quality area in the city for food, entertainment, culture and music”.

However, while a pub could be approved for No 25, there was no joy for Declan Taite with his application for a restaurant next door – even though a survey showed that there were still 27 retail units on the street, compared to 17 “restaurant-type units”.

The planning officer who dealt with the case noted that there were already “a large number of restaurants and cafes” on the street and these had “reached saturation point” while retail had been “suffering over the last few years” and might be “at a tipping point”.

In an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, planning consultant Tom Phillips argued that the proposed restaurant conversion would “ensure the viable re-use of the vacant ground floor of a protected structure” – like No 25, part of the historic South City Markets complex.

He noted that the unit had been on the market for four years and that “vacancy is running at 15 per cent of units on this street and is undermining the street as a desirable retail location” – even though shops still accounted for 48 per cent of all units.

“No rationale was presented by the planning officer to support the contention that the street had reached ‘saturation point’ as regards restaurants,” Phillips said. Neither had the council responded to issues raised, as planning inspector G Ryan noted. However, “on the basis of the clear intentions of the policies of the [city] development plan and . . . the situation evident on the ground”, the inspector agreed with the council’s interpretation of policy in this instance and recommended a refusal.

An architect familiar with the case, who did not wish to be identified, said the decision was bizarre. “This sends a hugely confusing message – two adjoining sites on a street refused for the same reason, both appealed, and one granted and one refused”. He suggested that the council should “quash this damaging policy” and “bite the bullet in the interests of proper planning, the vibrancy of the city and employment, to formally designate South Great George’s Street and surrounding streets as a culinary quarter”. Certainly, interpretation of the restrictive policy cannot be left to the whims of city planning officials or Bord Pleanála inspectors.