Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of a restricted site, characterized by excessive density, scale, and massing that fails to integrate with the suburban character of the area and would result in an unacceptable negative visual impact and injury to the residential amenity of adjoining properties.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed density of 286 units per hectare is significantly at odds with the immediate pattern of development in an 'Intermediate Urban' suburban location.
- The development fails to provide an adequate standard of residential amenity for future occupiers, specifically regarding the quality of sunken communal open space, internal storage deficiencies, and a low provision of true dual-aspect units.
- The proposal does not satisfy the criteria set out in SPPR 3 of the Building Height Guidelines or SPPR 8 of the Apartment Guidelines, as it fails to successfully integrate into or enhance the existing character and public realm of the area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Policy Objective PHP28 (Build-to-Rent)Policy Objective PHP20 (Protection of Amenity)Policy Objective PHP27 (Housing Mix)Policy Objective PHP 18 (Density)Section 12.8.5.1 (Quality of Open Space)Policy Objective BHS 3 (Building Height in Residual Suburban Areas)Appendix 3, Table 5.1 (Height Assessment Criteria)
Decision Document Summary
The application sought permission for a Build-to-Rent (BTR) residential development comprising 40 apartments in a four-storey-over-lower-ground block on a 0.14ha greenfield site at Finsbury Park, Churchtown. The site is situated in a mature suburban cul-de-sac characterized by two-storey dwellings and is adjacent to a school campus. While the applicant argued the site should be considered a 'central/accessible' urban location due to its proximity to the Dundrum Luas stop, the Inspector classifie...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.
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