D24A/0858/WEB

Alterations to a previously approved development under Reg. Ref. D24A/0260 whic

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended amending the financial and bond conditions (3, 4, 5, and 6) rather than refusal, as applying full new levies to an amendment that reduced the unit count from 8 to 7 constituted 'double charging' and misapplied Section 5.7 of the Development Contribution Scheme.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The Planning Authority misapplied Section 5.7 of the Development Contribution Scheme by seeking full contributions for an amendment that resulted in a net reduction of units and no additional liable floor area.
  • Conditions 3, 4, and 5 should be amended to reflect the revised downward calculation of contributions and must explicitly supersede the original levies to avoid the principle of double charging.
  • Condition 6 regarding the security bond should be updated to reflect the requirements of the amended scheme rather than acting as a redundant secondary security requirement.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028Zoning Objective ASection 12.3.4.6 BondsDevelopment Contribution Scheme 2023-2028 (Sections 4, 4.6, 5.7)Section 48(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000Section 139 of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Decision Document Summary

The appeal concerns a site at Mount Auburn House, Killiney Hill Road, Co. Dublin, where permission was sought to alter a previously approved 8-unit development (D24A/0260) to a 7-unit scheme. The proposed changes include replacing a duplex block with a single three-storey dwelling and reconfiguring communal space and parking. The primary conflict involves the Planning Authority's decision to apply a full new suite of development contributions and security bonds under the subject application (D24...
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