DUBLIN city councillors' decision last night to agree to a Hilton Hotel at College Street/ Westmoreland Street on condition that the sixth floor be omitted is to be appealed to Bord Pleanala.
The developers, Treasury Holdings, said while it accepted the councillors had tried to be helpful, the decision was not satisfactory. It would mean the hotel would be reduced from 173 bedrooms to 140 and that was of no interest to Hilton. They would now prepare their appeal to Bord Pleanala. If the board did not agree, there would probably be offices on the site.
The councillors, after a 1 1/2 hour debate, voted 42-1 for the hotel. Earlier they voted 27-1 for the Labour Party amendment that the sixth storey be omitted.
Ms Mary Freehill (Labour) said it the top floor was removed, the building would be "less bulky" and would fit into the area better.
The corporation's chief planning officer, Mr Pat McDonnell, in a written report for the members, recommended planning permission for the hotel be rejected. "I strongly recommend a refusal of planning permission on the grounds that, because of its bulk, it would have a seriously disruptive affect on a major conservation area, would involve the unnecessary demolition of listed buildings and be considerably and unjustifiably in excess of the maximum permissible plot ratio in the 1991 Dublin City Development Plan."
Many of the councillors spoke of the prestige of having a Hilton hotel in Dublin and the tremendous benefit it would be to tourism. They pointed to the number of hotels which the city had lost in recent years, saying this would redress the balance. The members also stressed the importance of jobs the project would generate, both in its building and permanent jobs when completed.
However, fears were expressed that the city would be losing more of its listed buildings. Members felt they should stand by their planning officer and their own development plan. By agreeing to the hotel, they would be tearing up the plan.
However, the majority believed the site area was becoming derelict and needed to be revitalised. They felt the plan was "excellent" and they should give it the go ahead.
Cllr Alan Robinson (PD) said he thought the plan excellent and he did not think they should agree to the amendment. They did not know how the developers would react to the amendment.
The city architect, Mr Jim Barrett, said the project had considerable architectural merit. The corporation had been wise to refuse offices on that site. The plan before them was a much better project. As tar as the roof floor was concerned, just because it was going to be big did not mean it was going to be bad.