21/615

Permission sought for change of density of dwelling units from 14 to 26 no units granted as part of development permitted under PL Reg No 07/57046 (extended under 17/772) and for revised design of same consisting of 22no dwelling houses (5 blocks of 4 (2 bed) terraced units). 2no semi detached (3 bed) dwellings and 1 block of 4no (1 bed) apartments all with their own private external balcony/terrace, construction of ancillary bin stores and bicycle parking, erection of boundary and dividing walls and ancillary site works. Permission is also sought for alterations to the ancillary works permitted under PL Reg No 07/57046 (extended under 17/772) namely, (A) construction and completion of road infrastructure with amendments to road levels and gradients from those permitted. (B) construction and completion of drainage and stormwater network with amendments to manhole cover levels from those permitted.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal constitutes overdevelopment that fails to address flood risk, lacks adequate amenity space, and contravenes conditions of the parent permission.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed surface water management and existing ground conditions pose a significant risk of flooding to the site and the surrounding locality.
  • The application materially contravenes conditions of the parent permission (07/57046), specifically regarding the lack of a financial bond and the omission of required rear garden access.
  • The increased density results in overdevelopment, characterized by the loss of designated public open space and substandard private amenity provisions for several units.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Decision Document Summary

The applicant sought permission to increase the density of a residential development at Gortnaclohy Chapel Court, Skibbereen, from 14 to 26 units. The local authority refused the application on the grounds that the site layout represents overdevelopment, leading to the loss of essential public open space and inadequate private gardens. Additionally, the proposal failed to demonstrate sufficient surface water drainage solutions, posing a flood risk, and was found to be in breach of conditions and...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.