2603/21
Permission for Modifications to existing planning permission for 2 storey apartment development approved under Reg Ref 2087/18 to provide; (A) a passenger lift, ambulant disabled stairs and general revisions including open spaces and balconies to the east and west of the site and; (B) 2 no. additional floors each containing 1 no. 2-bed apartment and 1 no. 1-bed apartment including balconies to the east and west of the site leading to an overall development of 8 apartments (4 x 2-bed and 4 x 1-bed) on 4 storeys with associated drainage services, boundary wall treatments, site works and landscaping.
Core Refusal Reason
While the Planning Authority initially refused permission for the four-storey proposal due to concerns of overdevelopment and visual impact, the Inspector recommended a grant of permission. This was based on a revised scheme submitted with the appeal that reduced the height of the eastern portion of the building to two storeys, effectively mitigating concerns regarding overlooking and overbearing impacts on adjacent properties.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The principle of increased residential density on this brownfield, inner-city infill site is supported by the National Planning Framework and local development plan policies to achieve compact growth.
- The revised drawings submitted with the appeal, which reduce the building height along the eastern boundary, successfully address the original concerns regarding loss of privacy and overbearing impacts on neighboring backlands.
- The proposed development's plot ratio (1.85) and site coverage (65%) are appropriate for this urban context and will not negatively impact the visual amenities of the area given its screened backland location.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns a first-party appeal for a proposed 4-storey apartment development (8 units) at 92A Prussia Street, Stoneybatter, which sought to modify a previously granted 2-storey scheme. The site is a restricted 279 sqm backland infill plot located behind traditional dwellings. Dublin City Council originally refused permission, citing overdevelopment and loss of privacy for neighbors. The Inspector's assessment highlights that while the four-storey massing was problematic in its origina...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