3617/22

Permission for a 25m multi-user telecommunications structure in the form of a replica cypress tree carrying multi-technology equipment together with associated cabinets and sundry development, screened behind natural planting with access off an existing path. The development is required for the provision of enhanced mobile and data services to St Anne's Park and wider areas of Clontarf and Dollymount on Three Ireland and Vodafone's networks and also provide future accommodation for a third licensed operator as required. An AA Screening report is included as St Anne's Park is within the buffer zone of the Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed 25m telecommunications structure was refused due to its significant adverse visual impact on a historic park and conservation area, contravention of open space zoning objectives, and negative impact on the setting of architectural heritage.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development fails to demonstrate a specific need for service enhancement within the park that cannot be met by more sensitively integrated facilities, resulting in unacceptable permanent visual impacts and potential damage to existing trees.
  • The proposal contravenes the Z9 zoning objective to preserve and improve recreational amenity and open space, specifically violating Section 16.33.1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022.
  • The structure would constitute a visually obtrusive and dominant form that causes serious injury to the character of St. Anne’s Park and the setting of the NIAH-listed Baymount Castle Gate Lodge.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Section 16.33.1Zoning Objective Z9Policy CHC2 (d)Policy CHC4 (1)Policy CHC4 (4)Policy CHC4 (5)

Decision Document Summary

The proposal sought permission for a 25-meter multi-user telecommunications structure at Pitch 35 in St. Anne's Park, Dublin 5. The site is situated within a historic park and a designated conservation area zoned for recreational amenity and open space (Z9). Dublin City Council refused the application on the grounds that the structure would be visually dominant and obtrusive, harming the integrity of the historic landscape and the setting of nearby protected structures and architectural heritage...
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.