3017/25

PROTECTED STRUCTURE : The proposed development will consist of : Proposed off- street parking and formation of a vehicular access off Palmerston Road , to include partial removal of the existing front railings and plinth , provision of inward opening vehicular gates , dishing of footpath and associated ancillary alterations and landscaping works .

Split decision

Core Reason for the Refused Part

The Inspector recommended granting permission, concluding that the development is compatible with the Z2 zoning and would not adversely affect the character of the Protected Structure or the Conservation Area, particularly as off-street parking is an established pattern for 70-80% of houses on Palmerston Road.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The loss of one on-street parking space is insignificant given the provision of two off-street spaces and the availability of vacant on-street parking observed during the site inspection.
  • The insertion of vehicular access is consistent with the unique character of Palmerston Road, where deep gardens and existing precedents allow for such development without harming the historic streetscape.
  • The proposal supports the sustainable continued use of the property as a single-family home and facilitates necessary modern requirements such as home EV charging and child safety.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Z2 Residential Neighbourhood (Conservation Area)Policy SMT25 (On-street parking)Policy BHA2 (Protected Structures)BHA 9 (Conservation Areas)Section 15.15.2.2 (Conservation Areas)Policy SMT29 (EV Charging)Appendices Section 4.3.7 (Parking in the curtilage of a Protected Structure)Appendices Section 4.1 (On Street Parking)Appendices Section 4.3 (Parking in Front Gardens)

Decision Document Summary

The proposal seeks to provide a 3m wide vehicular entrance and off-street parking at 54 Palmerston Road, a Victorian mid-terrace Protected Structure. Dublin City Council initially issued a split decision, refusing the parking element based on the loss of on-street pay-and-display parking (Policy SMT25) and potential heritage damage. The first-party appeal argued that 80% of houses on the road have such parking and that it is required for family safety and EV charging. The Inspector disagreed wit...
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