Eleanora pub renovation plans refused permission
The Elenaora pub was refused permission

Eleanora pub renovation plans refused permission

PLANS to renovate, extend and change the use of part of the Eleanora Bar and Lounge for a new extended outdoor seating area have been refused permission by Dublin City Council.

Christopher Keane and Darren Keane sought to renovate, change of use and extend the public house which is located at 145, 147 & 149 Drimnagh Road, Crumlin.

Proposals included the demolition of the existing non-original single-storey extension to the rear of 147 Drimnagh Road.

An improved and extended outdoor seating area to the rear of the property facing Hughes Road including the demolition of existing shed structures were among the plans.

Refurbishment and extension works of the existing toilets at ground floor level, an improved storage and recycling area taking part of the private open space at the rear of 145 Drimnagh Road were also part of the plans.

The applicant was also seeking to remove redundant services at roof level, upgrade and relocate the fire exit route form the first floor, and the erection of a green sedum roof covering.

All repair, refurbishment, renovation and alterations to the building – including all associated site works – were in the application.

On December 17, the city planning authority came to the decision that the proposed development would “seriously injure” residential amenities of adjoining residential properties and refused permission.

In the first of two reasons, the council said that the proposed development would “seriously injure the amenities and depreciate the value of property in vicinity and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”.

In the second reason for refusal, the council took into consideration the established pattern of development to the east of the site which is primarily residential properties.

With an increased footprint of the public house into the rear garden at 145 Drimnagh Road, which is a residential property, it is considered that the development “would result in an unsatisfactory standard of residential amenity”.

It was also mentioned that the plans would result in “overdevelopment of the site by reason of the inadequate provision of quality private open space”.

Share This