2625/21

Planning permission for : demolition of existing buildings and the construction of 40 apartments (13 x 1 bed units, 22 x 2 bed units & 5 x 3 bed units all with required balconies) in a single building served by 2 independent entrances. The building is 4 and 5 storeys in height over basement accessed by a single ramp of Rathmines Park. Basement contains 39 car spaces, 40 cycle spaces, bin stores, storage and plant. Application also includes 1 disabled car space, off street in the building forecourt, landscaping throughout and all associated building services and works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The unjustified demolition of a building of architectural and historic interest (Garland House) and its replacement with a development of excessive scale and poor residential quality that would negatively impact the Conservation Area and neighboring amenities.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The demolition of Garland House would result in the loss of a building of significant architectural, historic, and social interest that contributes positively to the character and identity of the local area.
  • The proposed development is excessive in scale, bulk, and massing, resulting in a visually intrusive structure that would harm the Conservation Area and the residential amenity of neighbors through overbearing effects and loss of light.
  • The proposal fails to provide an adequate standard of residential accommodation due to the inclusion of north-facing single-aspect units, poor communal and play space provision, and insufficient privacy for ground-floor units.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy CHC1Section 16.2.1.2Section 16.10.17Chapter 16Section 16

Decision Document Summary

The proposal sought planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings, including 'Garland House', and the construction of a new development at 28-30 Rathmines Park, Dublin 6. The site is situated in a sensitive location within a Conservation Area. Dublin City Council refused the application because the existing building holds significant heritage value and its removal was not justified under the City Development Plan. Furthermore, the replacement structure was deemed to be of inapprop...
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.