3378/21

Planning permission for a vehicular access exiting onto Oaklands Park to the front of existing dwelling house.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal is contrary to Dublin City Council policy, specifically Policy MT14 and Section 16.38.9, as it would reduce the supply of on-street parking available to residents, set an undesirable precedent for similar developments, and injure the amenities of the residential conservation area.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The removal of original cast iron railings and granite plinths to accommodate off-street parking would erode the historic character, uniformity, and visual harmony of the highly intact period terrace within a zoned Residential Conservation Area.
  • The proposed development fails to meet the criteria of Section 16.10.18 of the Development Plan, as the loss of a public on-street parking space is not justified and would set a cumulative precedent for the diminishment of the area's intrinsic character.
  • The access would create a traffic hazard because the narrow carriage width of Oaklands Park and restricted visibility due to parked cars and telegraph poles make safe egress difficult, particularly as the site's dimensions would likely force vehicles to reverse onto the public road.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Objective Z2 (Residential Conservation Area)Section 14.8.2 (Residential Conservation Areas)Section 16.10.18 (Parking in Curtilage of Protected Structures and in Conservation Areas)Policy MT14 (Minimising loss of on-street parking)Section 16.38.9 (Presumption against removal of on-street parking)Section 16.2.2.4 (Front boundary development)Section 16.8 (Access for all)

Decision Document Summary

The proposal involves the creation of a 3m wide vehicular entrance and a permeable gravel parking area to the front of No. 45 Oaklands Park, a mid-terrace 2-storey period dwelling in Ballsbridge. The site is located within a Z2 Residential Conservation Area where properties typically retain original boundary treatments and rely on on-street parking. The appellant argued that the driveway was necessary for a family member with mobility issues; however, the Inspector found no evidentiary proof of ...
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.

View the appeal at An Bord Pleanála