WEB2674/25

Planning permission is sought for a new vehicular entrance and ancillary site works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed vehicular entrance would result in the loss of communal on-street parking spaces that serve the wider needs of the city, contrary to Policy SMT25, and would set an undesirable precedent for the erosion of the established streetscape and residential amenity.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The creation of a private vehicular entrance would lead to a net loss of shared communal parking spaces that are essential for local residents, visitors, and businesses in the Raheny Village area.
  • The proposed 3.4m wide entrance exceeds the maximum standard of 3.0m set out in the Development Plan and would represent a significant and negative intervention in the uniform visual character of the terrace.
  • The development would set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals, which would cumulatively erode the character of the streetscape and further diminish the availability of on-street parking.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Objective Z4 (Key Urban Villages)Section 8.5.7 (Car Parking)Policy Objective SMT25 (On Street Parking)Appendix 5 (Transport and Mobility: Technical Requirements)Section 4.1 (On Street Parking)Section 4.3 (Parking in Front Gardens)Section 4.3.1 (Dimensions & Surfacing)

Decision Document Summary

This report assesses a first-party appeal against Dublin City Council's decision to refuse permission for a new vehicular entrance at 18 Main Street, Raheny. The subject site is a mid-terrace house situated within an area zoned Z4, which prioritizes mixed-service facilities and urban village character. A key point of contention is a communal parking bay located in front of the terrace; the appellant argues this land is private, whereas the Inspector and observers note its longstanding function a...
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