Core Planning Reasoning
Grant of permission recommended as the nature and scale of the development are considered acceptable within the context of the site. The elevational changes are of high quality and do not negatively impact visual or residential amenity. The exclusion of Unit 6 from previously permitted upgrade works is deemed reasonable and does not invalidate the application despite the absence of the owner's consent.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The alterations to the shopfronts and upper residential floors are of a high standard and represent a positive contribution to the Bayside Shopping Complex without impacting the surrounding area.
- The procedural and ownership concerns raised by the appellant regarding Unit 6 are considered civil matters; consent is not required for this proposal as no physical works are being carried out on that specific unit.
- The development is consistent with the 'Local Centre' zoning objective to protect and improve local facilities and complies with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Fingal County Development Plan 2017-2023Zoning Objective LC (Local Centre)Local Objective 111Noise Zone D
Decision Document Summary
The proposal seeks retention for external elevational changes to Units 3, 4, and 5 at Bayside Shopping Centre, Sutton, and the retention of original elevations for Unit 6, effectively opting out of previously permitted upgrades for that unit. The site context involves ground-floor retail units with duplex residential units above, located within an established local service centre. A third-party appeal from the owner of Unit 6 raised concerns regarding the lack of owner consent and the validity o...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.