D25A/0958/WEB

The development consists of: (A) The construction of a two storey detached two b

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal was refused due to significant flood risk within Flood Zones A and B, substandard residential amenity for both future and existing occupants, and pedestrian safety hazards arising from inadequate infrastructure.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development is classified as 'Highly Vulnerable' and is located within Flood Zones A and B of the Carysfort-Maretimo River catchment, which is contrary to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment policies of the County Development Plan.
  • The proposed dwelling would provide a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupants due to inadequate private open space and overlooking, while simultaneously causing overshadowing and overbearance for neighboring properties.
  • The lack of a receiving footpath at the site entrance creates a significant pedestrian and traffic hazard, resulting in a substandard level of safety and amenity for the area.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Appendix 15 (Strategic Flood Risk Assessment)Section 5.2 (Development in Flood Zone A or B)Section 12.10.1 (Flood Risk Management)Section 5.2.2 (Highly vulnerable development in Flood Zone A or B other than Minor Development)Section 6.2.13 (Carysfort Maretimo)Section 12.3.1.1 (Design Criteria)

Decision Document Summary

The proposal involved the construction of a two-storey detached two-bedroom dwelling on land to the rear of Carysfort House, Blackrock. The planning authority refused permission primarily because the site is located in a high-risk flood area where residential development is restricted. Furthermore, the design was deemed to negatively impact the residential amenity of the neighboring property through overshadowing and overbearance, while failing to provide adequate private space for future reside...
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