2660448

1. the demolition of the original derelict stone forge building and reconstruction to similar dimensions in rendered blockwork with replacement metal roof for use ancillary to the main house. 2. removal of the chimney to the front of the original cottage. 3. partial demolition of the vehicular entrance and reconstruction with 3.5M wide opening. 4. 48sm single-storey timber outbuilding to the rear of the site. And Planning Permission for, the replacement of the existing septic tank with provision of a new waste-water treatment in accordance with Code of Practice EPA 202

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The development constitutes sporadic, non-ancillary residential development in a rural area that violates the settlement strategy, creates a traffic hazard, and negatively impacts the architectural and natural heritage of the site.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The reconstructed forge building is considered a separate habitable unit rather than an ancillary structure, constituting sporadic development in a rural area contrary to the County Development Plan's settlement strategy.
  • The proposed development would create a serious traffic hazard due to inadequate sightlines at the vehicular entrance, which would now serve two separate dwellings.
  • The project fails to protect the site's heritage and environment, specifically regarding the removal of original architectural features of the cottage and the unwarranted loss of established native hedgerows without adequate assessment.

Cited Policies (CDP)

CDP-Settlement StrategyCPO 6.41CPO 17.35Appendix 1Section 9.2.3Appendix 2Chapter 17

Decision Document Summary

The application sought retention for the demolition and reconstruction of a stone forge, the removal of a cottage chimney, entrance widening, and a new timber outbuilding at Windgates, Greystones. The Planning Authority refused the application primarily because the reconstructed forge was deemed a separate, unauthorized dwelling in a rural area, violating settlement policies. Additionally, the development posed traffic safety risks due to poor sightlines and failed to demonstrate adequate protec...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.