The Bank of Ireland occupy the historical buildings in College Green in Dublin which up to the Act of Union in 1800 housed the Irish Houses of Parliament.

The Westmoreland Street  frontage of the building contains two external ATM machines which are the busiest in the State and are nearing the end of their life. The Bank decided to replace them with new machines. Being of newer design they were marginally bigger than the machines they replaced. Externally they would look the same, but the inner machine would be slightly larger and it would be necessary to shave a small amount off the stonework.

They lodged an application with Dublin City Council and the Conservation Division was strenuously oppossed. They said

Whilst the alteration is considered incremental by the applicant, the scale of openings as illustrated in the planning documentation will be substantial and will impact on the overall scale and proportion of the classical arcading in the opinion of the Conservation Officer. 

The City Council refused planning permission.The Planner stated,

There are serious concerns relating to the proposed works that further erode the setting of the historic portico and given the importance of this prestigious building it is considered that the further intervention is unwarranted. It is noted that Bank of Ireland have other ATMs located within the building with disabled access.

The Bank then engaged Manahan Planners to appeal  the Decision to An Bord Pleanala.

While preparing the appeal the Bank`s engineers removed the outer casing and discovered that the opes the machines sat in were in fact bigger than thought and its surrounds were filled  with timber and stone. There was no need therefore to shave the original  historical stone as thought.

Manahans then submitted the appeal and included  the information that there would be no need to shave the stone work. We argued the work could not  be regarded in any way "substantial" and having regard to its minor extent would not "erode the setting of this building" as claimed. The Council replied that in spite of this information re no intervention with the stonework, they were still opposed and recommended that permission be refused.

The Boards Inspector disagreed and considered the proposal to be "minor" and would not take from the character or setting of the building as claimed. She noted that while the Council claimed that there were ATM`s within the bank with disabled access, this ignored that the building closed in the evenings and week ends and therefore the public and the disabled  would be denied this facility if permission was refused. She recommded that permission be granted.

The Board granted permission.