D24A/0492

Planning permission is being sought for retention and alterations to development

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed development is located within Flood Zone A and constitutes a highly vulnerable new dwelling (rather than a minor extension) on a site where residential use had been abandoned; it failed the required Justification Test and contravenes the 'F' zoning objective which prioritizes open space and recreation.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The Inspector concluded that 'Roseville Cottage' had been abandoned for a significant period prior to works, meaning the development represents a new habitable dwelling which is not permitted under the site's 'F' zoning objective.
  • The site is located wholly within Flood Zone A, and since the proposal has not passed the required Justification Test for development management, it would increase risk to people and property.
  • The application was deemed procedurally flawed due to inaccurate development descriptions, misleading drawings that do not reflect the current site state, and the inclusion of flood defence works that are outside the applicant's control.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Objective FPolicy Objective PHP19: Existing Housing Stock - AdaptationPolicy Objective GIB18: Protect and Conserve the EnvironmentSection 10.7: Flood RiskPolicy Objective EI22: Flood Risk ManagementSection 12.3.7: Additional Accommodation in Existing Built-up AreasSection 12.8.3.3: Private Open SpaceSection 13.1.5: Land Use MatrixSection 13.1.7: Non-Conforming UsesSection 13.1.9: Residential Land Use in Zoning FAppendix 15: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)Section 6.2.10 of Appendix 15

Decision Document Summary

This report concerns a first-party appeal against the refusal of retention and permission for alterations to a dormer dwelling at Roseville Cottage, Dublin 18. The site is uniquely situated on a 0.085ha plot accessed via a bridge over the Loughlinstown River, located within a pNHA and Flood Zone A. The primary point of contention is whether the works constitute a 'minor extension' to an existing house or a new-build dwelling. The Inspector determined that because the original cottage was derelic...
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