3526/21
The development will consist of: a) the demolition of the existing rear first floor balcony, and; b) the construction of a three-storey extension, over parking level, to the rear of the existing building, comprising of: 584sqm of office space and 294sqm of media rooms and associated staff welfare facilities; 8 no. car parking spaces and 8 no. bicycle storage spaces at lower ground floor level; a bin store and plant room at the lower ground floor; and, all associated engineering and site development works necessary to facilitate the development.
Core Refusal Reason
The proposal was refused because the cumulative office floor area exceeds the 600 sq.m limit for Z3 zoned lands, the design is visually incongruous with the period terrace and Conservation Area, and the development would compromise the delivery of the strategic MetroLink and DART+ West transport projects.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The net office floor area of the proposed extension combined with the existing building significantly exceeds the 600 sq.m limitation for Z3 zoned lands, thereby materially contravening the zoning objective of the Dublin City Development Plan.
- The scale, massing, and 13-meter height of the extension would be visually obtrusive and have an overbearing impact on the existing 1830s period terrace, detracting from the character and visual amenity of the Royal Canal Conservation Area.
- The application site is essential for the delivery of a major strategic Urban Transport Node; developing the land would compromise the implementation of the MetroLink and DART+ West projects, which are protected under national and local transport policies.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The application sought permission for an office extension (originally three storeys, revised to two storeys over undercroft parking on appeal) to the rear of Prospect House, a pair of amalgamated two-storey 19th-century buildings in Glasnevin. The site is zoned Z3 'Neighbourhood Centres' and is located within the Royal Canal Conservation Area. The Inspector argued that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that exceeds floor area caps for its zoning. Furthermore, the modern exte...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