WEB1149/24

The development will consist of the demolition of an existing single storey shed, alteration to the existing boundary wall and the construction of a two storey dwelling with a courtyard to the west and a first floor terrace to the south and axillary site works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The applicant failed to satisfactorily address flood risk; specifically, the proposal lacks a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (SSFRA) with hydraulic modelling and proposes a finished floor level that does not sufficiently mitigate risks within Flood Zone A.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The Inspector found the scale, height, and separation distances of the revised design to be acceptable, concluding that the proposal would not have a significantly overbearing impact on adjoining properties.
  • Private open space provision was deemed adequate under the 'Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines (2024)', which allows for a more flexible application of standards (30 sqm for a 2-bed house) than the local Development Plan.
  • The primary grounds for refusal remains the unresolved flood risk, as the site is within Flood Zone A and the proposed finished floor level of 2.34m OD is lower than previous proposals and lacks the necessary technical justification.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Z2 Zoning ObjectiveSection 14.7.2Policy BHA9 (Conservation Areas)QHSN6 (Urban Consolidation)QHSN10 (Urban Density)QHSN04 (Densification of Suburbs)Section 5.3 (Internal Layout and Space Provision)Section 15.11.3 (Private Open Space Standards)Section 15.13.4 (Backland Housing)Section 15.13.5 (Mews Dwellings)

Decision Document Summary

This Inspector's Report concerns an appeal against Dublin City Council's refusal of permission for a contemporary two-storey, two-bedroom mews dwelling (158 sqm) at Lansdowne Lane, Ballsbridge. The site, currently containing a 22 sqm shed, was originally part of the rear garden of No. 10/10A Lansdowne Terrace. The Planning Authority originally refused permission based on overbearing impacts and substandard private open space. However, the Inspector disagreed with these points, noting that the re...
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