3980/24
The development will consist of the construction of a 7-level apartment building with setbacks at the penthouse level to present a 6-level apartment building to the Lane. The development will consist of 17 no. apartments, comprising of 4 studio units, 4 1-bed units, 6 2-bed units and 3 3-bedsunits. Ancillary residential functions including a resident's foyer lounge, resident's meeting rooms, plant area, bin storage and bicycle storage to accommodate 38 no. bicycles are located at ground level. The development resident entrance is accessed directly from Britain Place, with separate entrances for the bicycle and bin stores. The total gross internal area of the development is 1,595msq.
Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of a small infill site, resulting in an excessive residential density of 592 units per hectare and substandard residential accommodation due to inadequate communal open space and internal storage.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed density of 592 units per hectare significantly exceeds the standard threshold of 300 units per hectare without a compelling architectural or urban design rationale to justify the intensity.
- The development fails to provide adequate internal storage for three-bedroom units and falls far short of the required communal open space standards (providing only 21sqm instead of the required 99sqm).
- The architectural response to overlooking issues—specifically the use of opal laminated glass—is considered an unacceptable solution that would result in poor residential amenity and constrain the future development potential of adjoining lands.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The applicant sought permission for a 7-level apartment building containing 16 units (reduced from 17) on a 270sqm brownfield site at Britain Place, Dublin 1. While the Inspector acknowledged the site's central location within a Z5 City Centre zone and Strategic Development Regeneration Area (SDRA 10), the proposal was deemed an overdevelopment. The primary arguments against the scheme focused on its high density, which was viewed as 'piecemeal' rather than 'plan-led'. The Inspector found the re...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