Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended amending the Planning Authority's condition No. 2 because the original wording was imprecise and contained clerical errors, such as referring to 'houses' in the plural. The amendment ensures the building is clearly defined as a single residential unit to protect amenity and prevent unauthorized subdivision.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The building functions as a single large dwelling unit interconnected at the ground floor, despite having internal layouts that could potentially facilitate future subdivision.
- Condition No. 2, as originally drafted, failed the tests for planning conditions (precision and enforceability) due to clerical errors and ambiguous references to multiple dwellings.
- Modifying the condition to explicitly require joint occupation as a single residential unit is necessary to protect the residential amenity of the area and provide planning clarity for the property's future use.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Fingal County Development Plan 2023 – 2029Zoning Objective RV – Rural VillagePolicy SPQHP51Policy CSP7Policy CSP8Chapter 14, Section 14.12.1Section 3.5.13.1 (Extension Design guidance)
Decision Document Summary
This report assesses an appeal against Condition No. 2 of a grant for the retention of a first-floor extension, porches, and a rear lobby at a site in Rolestown, Co. Dublin. The site, formerly a shop and petrol station, now consists of a building that presents as two separate units but is interconnected at the ground floor. The Planning Authority (Fingal County Council) granted permission but imposed a condition restricting subdivision and commercial use, which the applicant appealed as being im...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.