4244/24
PROTECTED STRUCTURE : Brownfield site to rear of protected structures. The development will consist of the demolition of the existing single-storey commercial buildings and the construction of a terrace of 4no. two-bedroom dwellings with a study, part two-storey and part three-storey with velux rooflights. The terrace has a maximum parapet eight of 7.1 metres with set-backs to the upper level on Bannaville. The provision of private open space is accommodated for each dwelling at three levels with privacy screens, 1no. vehicular parking, bicycle parking spaces, bin storage is located within the front cartilage of each dwelling. All with associated site and landscape works.
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing, and proximity to adjacent Protected Structures, would be out of character with the Z2 Conservation Area and would cause serious injury to the residential amenities of the area through visual overbearance and undue overlooking.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The 3-storey scale and 9-metre height are not subordinate to the adjacent Protected Structures and would undermine the architectural integrity and setting of the historic streetscape and Z2 Conservation Area.
- The development constitutes overdevelopment of a restricted site, with a site coverage of 78% significantly exceeding the indicative 40-50% range for Conservation Areas.
- The proximity and height of the proposed terraces would lead to unacceptable levels of overlooking and visual overbearance on the private amenity spaces of neighboring properties on Mount Pleasant Avenue Lower and Mount Pleasant Terrace.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The applicant sought permission to demolish 'Kelly’s Garage', a single-storey commercial building, and construct 4 no. two-bedroom dwellings on a backland brownfield site in Dublin 6. The site is situated within the historic curtilage of Protected Structures at Nos. 12 and 13 Mount Pleasant Avenue Lower and is zoned for residential conservation (Z2). While the Inspector acknowledged that residential use is encouraged in the zone, the proposal was found to be overly dominant. The Inspector argued...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