3158/21

Permission is sought for the following: i) Retention of permission for a change of use from shop to restaurant, ii) The removal of existing 2 no. twenty-foot shipping containers and demolition of the single storey store-room and WC's to the rear of the property and iii) Planning permission for a single storey extension to side (48.37sqm) with internal alterations at ground floor level and a two-storey extension to the rear (22.15sqm) with re-configuration and alterations of residential accommodation at upper floor levels with all associated site works and boundary treatments.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The development is considered to be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area as it improves the architectural character of the Residential Conservation Area by replacing unauthorized shipping containers and substandard structures with a high-quality extension that respects the residential amenities of the vicinity.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed development successfully addresses previous refusals by reducing the scale of the structures and improving the design response at a prominent road junction.
  • Residential amenities regarding noise, odour, and overshadowing are protected through robust technical assessments and the imposition of specific planning conditions, including modified opening hours.
  • The proposal is compatible with the Z2 zoning objective for Residential Conservation Areas, as it enhances the streetscape while maintaining a suitable mix of uses.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Z2 Zoning ObjectiveSection 14.8.2Section 16.29Section 16.2.2.3Section 16.10.12Appendix 17

Decision Document Summary

The application at 95 Ringsend Road, Dublin 4, seeks retention for the change of use from a shop to a restaurant and the removal of unauthorized shipping containers, as well as permission for new side and rear extensions and reconfiguration of upper-floor residential space. Located in a Z2 Residential Conservation Area, the site has a complex planning history with multiple previous refusals. Third-party appellants cited concerns over noise, 'noxious odours' from the flue, and security risks from...
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