D21A/0869

Permission for development. The development will consist of

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The Inspector recommended a grant of permission (reversing the Planning Authority's refusal) as the revised proposal is compatible with the 'NC' zoning objective and successfully mitigates impacts on the Monkstown Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) and neighboring residential amenities through increased setbacks and reduced massing.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed 400 sqm retail unit constitutes a 'neighbourhood shop' that is permitted in principle under the 'NC' zoning objective and will not undermine the retail hierarchy of the Major Town Centre at Dun Laoghaire.
  • Revised design amendments, including a 5m setback from the northern boundary and the removal of the first-floor seating terrace, address concerns regarding overdevelopment, visual overbearing, and loss of residential privacy.
  • The development supports sustainable travel patterns by serving a primarily walk-in population in a highly accessible urban area, rendering the non-provision of dedicated on-site parking acceptable.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy RET6Policy RET9Policy ARIPolicy AR12Policy AR13Policy UD1Section 8.2.6.6Section 8.2.11.3Policy Objective RET7Policy Objective RET9Policy Objective HER13

Decision Document Summary

The application seeks permission for the extension and refurbishment of a vacant building (formerly a car showroom) at 14/15 Monkstown Crescent to create a 400 sqm retail unit (Dunnes Stores), including an ancillary café kiosk and off-licence. The site is situated on a prominent corner within the Monkstown Architectural Conservation Area (ACA). While Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council initially refused permission citing overdevelopment and concerns over the balance of retail uses, the Inspect...
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