3950/22
Planning permission for the proposed development involves the following: the demolition of the existing derelict sheds and construction of part 7 and part 8 storey mixed use retail and residential development consisting of 2 no. retail units and 44 no. apartments comprising of 22 no. one-bed, 19 no. two-bed and 3 no. three-bed units, all with associated private open space, communal open space, landscaping, bike storage, bin storage, retail storage and the necessary site works.
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of a modest infill site by reason of its excessive height, scale, and massing, which would result in visual overbearance, injury to the historic character of the Liffey Quays Conservation Area, and a failure to provide adequate residential amenity or comply with mandatory housing mix and archaeological assessment requirements.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of a restricted site, failing to respond to the established low-rise grain and character of the surrounding streetscape and the Liffey Quays Conservation Area.
- The development fails to meet minimum qualitative standards for residential living, specifically regarding the housing mix (failing the HNDA requirements), a severe deficit in dual-aspect units, and inadequate communal open space.
- Approval would be premature and prejudicial to the public domain as the design encroaches on lands earmarked for future mobility infrastructure and lacks a site-specific archaeological assessment in a Zone of Archaeological Constraint.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The applicant sought permission for an 8-storey mixed-use building comprising 2 retail units and 44 apartments at 39-40 Bridgefoot Street, Dublin 8. The site is a derelict brownfield plot in the 'Liberties' area (SDRA 15). While the Inspector acknowledged the principle of high-density redevelopment on brownfield land is supported by national policy, the specific proposal was found to be a 'poor example of infill.' Key concerns included the excessive 32.9m height compared to the 4-6 storey contex...PDF Document Missing
The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.
Search for case on ABP