Johnny Ronan’s firm contests Dublin City Council’s refusal of docklands Citigroup HQ redevelopment

This follows Ronan Group Real Estate (RGRE) lodging an appeal to An Bord Pleanála against last month’s council refusal.

Mr Ronan is seeking permission for the redevelopment of global banking giant Citigroup’s current European headquarters at 1 North Wall Quay in Dublin’s docklands.

The scheme involves the demolition of Citigroup’s existing six-storey office building and the development of four buildings in its place ranging in height from nine storeys to 17 storeys.

As part of the appeal, Mr Ronan’s applicant firm, NWQ Devco Limited, is requesting that An Bord Pleanála stage an oral hearing into the case.

Planning consultants for RGRE, John Spain & Associates, state that an oral hearing in this instance will assist further in the provision “of a comprehensive understanding of the proposed development in the relevant planning context and the potential impacts and benefits of the proposal”.

The proposal is to include the 16th floor being used as an interactive gallery housing a permanent exhibition entitled Liffey Experience, which “will form a significant public gain to the entire city”.

The appeal states that the Liffey Experience space will provide unparalleled views across the city and could become one of the city’s most important visitor centres and tourist attractions.

The applicants are seeking a 10-year planning permission “due to the complexities around the delivery of a building and the current impacts on the supply chain being experienced by the construction industry”.

The raft of documentation lodged as part of the appeal includes a three-page legal submission by Arthur Cox LLP.

The Arthur Cox submission states that the application submitted meets the criteria for “exceptional circumstances” that would allow planning permission to be granted for a landmark building.

The letter states that it appears Dublin City Council did not engage in any analysis or consideration of the “exceptional circumstances”. The Cox letter states that any failure on the part of the appeals board to consider the exceptional circumstance test “would amount to a failure to take into account a relevant consideration” in the process.