Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed development failed to establish the ecological value of the site with sufficient certainty, particularly regarding protected bat species, and did not adequately quantify impacts or propose specific mitigation measures, thereby contravening Objective GIB22 of the County Development Plan.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The principle of a high-density residential infill development (c. 140uph) is acceptable at this location due to its proximity to high-capacity public transport (Luas) and the established urban transition of the surrounding area.
- The demolition of the existing dwelling is justified as the site is suitable for higher buildings and the proposal facilitates a significant increase in density that outweighs the preference for retrofitting.
- The application lacks a robust Ecological Impact Assessment, leaving unresolved concerns about the presence of bat roosts and the impact of tree removal on protected species, which necessitates a refusal of permission.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective AObjective CA6Objective PHP18Objective PHP19Objective PHP20Objective PHP27Objective PHP35Objective OSR7Objective GIB22Objective GIB25Objective GIB28Section 12.3.1Section 12.3.5.2Section 12.3.7.7Section 12.3.9Section 12.4.5Section 12.8.3.1Section 12.8.11
Decision Document Summary
The applicant sought permission for a 5-storey apartment block of 26 units involving the demolition of an existing two-storey dwelling on a 0.223ha site at Golf Lane, Carrickmines. The Planning Authority originally granted permission subject to conditions, but this was appealed by third parties citing overdevelopment, loss of greenery, and ecological concerns. The Inspector's assessment concluded that while the project's density, height, and residential amenity impacts were largely acceptable un...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