Core Refusal Reason
The Inspector recommended granting permission, overturning the Planning Authority's refusal which was based on concerns that on-street parking would obstruct required sightlines and create a traffic hazard.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed entrance would improve vehicular and pedestrian access safety by terminating a shared driveway arrangement that currently creates conflict and safety concerns for the applicants' children.
- While sightlines are partially obstructed by indented on-street parking, this is an existing condition for the current shared access and, according to DMURS guidance, can serve as a traffic calming measure that does not necessarily increase collision risk.
- The development is acceptable under the 'A' zoning objective and, subject to a condition reducing the entrance width to 3.5m, would not negatively impact the Architectural Conservation Area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 12.3.4 Residential Development – General RequirementsSection 12.3.4.1 Road and Footpath RequirementsSection 12.4.8 Vehicular Entrances and Hardstanding AreasSection 12.4.8.1 General SpecificationsSection 12.4.8.2 Visual and Physical ImpactsSection 12.4.8.3 Driveways/Hardstanding AreasSection 12.4.8.4 ACAs/Protected StructuresSection 12.4.8.5 Financial ContributionSection 12.8.7.2 Boundaries
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves the creation of a new vehicular entrance, pillars, and gates at Oaktree Lodge, Foxrock, within an Architectural Conservation Area. The site currently shares a driveway with the adjoining property 'Cois Carraige' via a right-of-way. The Planning Authority refused permission on the grounds of public safety, arguing that indented on-street parking would prevent the achievement of standard sightlines. On appeal, the Inspector found that the new entrance would significantly enha...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