2777/21

Permission to erect an 18m high monopole telecommunications support structure together with antennas, dishes and associated equipment all enclosed in security fencing.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

While the Planning Authority refused the application due to visual and residential amenity concerns, the Inspector recommended a GRANT of permission, concluding that the 18m monopole is not visually intrusive, is technically justified for 4G coverage, and is consistent with the site's established utility use and proper planning.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development is acceptable in principle as it is located within an established telecommunications exchange site and the applicant has provided sufficient technical justification regarding 4G coverage deficits in the vicinity of St. James’s Hospital.
  • The visual impact of the 18m slender monopole is considered intermittent and acceptable given the presence of existing vertical infrastructure on-site and the surrounding urban context which includes streetlights and ESB poles.
  • The proposal will not seriously injure the residential amenities of nearby properties and is in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, subject to standard conditions including the removal of equipment once obsolete.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Z1 (Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods)Section 9.5.11 (Telecommunications)Policy SI29Policy SI30Objective SIO30Section 16.33Section 16.33.1 (Siting, Design and Visual Amenity)Section 16.33.2 (Possible Sharing of Installations)Appendix 21 (Definition of Public Service Installation)Section 14.8.1

Decision Document Summary

The application seeks permission for an 18m high monopole telecommunications structure at the existing Eir Exchange at the junction of James’s Walk and Forbes Lane, Dublin 8. The site is zoned Z1 (Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods) but serves a long-standing utility function. Dublin City Council initially refused permission, citing adverse visual impacts on residential properties and the setting of an undesirable precedent. However, the Inspector's assessment emphasizes that the site is wel...
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