3284/24

PROTECTED STRUCTURE: RPS no. 6849. The development consists of: (i) three storey over lower ground floor extension to the rear, (ii) relocation of stairwell to the new extension. (iii) change of use of the completed building from residential to hostel type use. (iv) internal layout revisions to accommodate same, (v) removal of later addition overhanging W.C. to the rear elevation (vi) repairs to the existing roof and chimney (vii) re-point existing external brick walls (viii) replacement of existing aluminium windows with heritage style timber sash windows, (ix) all associated site works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal fails to justify the use of a Protected Structure for temporary/emergency accommodation, proposes an architecturally insensitive extension that damages the building's heritage value, and involves unauthorised works that contravene conservation guidelines.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed use for temporary/emergency accommodation is inconsistent with housing policies for the area, potentially devaluing neighboring properties and negatively impacting residential amenity in a rent pressure zone.
  • The scale, massing, and design of the proposed three-storey rear extension are inappropriate and would adversely affect the special character, historic fabric, and curtilage of the Protected Structure.
  • The commencement of unauthorised development works demonstrates a failure to adhere to best conservation practices and the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy QHSN28Policy QHSN29Policy QHSN33Section 15.13.9Policy BHA2 (a, b, c, d, e, f)

Decision Document Summary

The application proposed a three-storey development at No. 3 Preston Street, Dublin 1, a designated Protected Structure located within a residential terrace. Dublin City Council refused the application on three primary grounds: the unsuitability of the proposed temporary accommodation use in a residential area with high demand for long-term housing; the insensitive design of the rear extension which would harm the architectural integrity of the heritage asset; and the fact that unauthorised work...
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.